Valve Hasn't Given up on Paid Mods

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Karadalis said:
Olas said:
However, since there are no details about Valve's implementation this time around, there's no justification for even that complaint. I guess people are just assuming Valve has learned absolutely nothing and won't try to address the concerns they clearly know people have with this system.
After greenlight and early access and the abysmal customer service they self admitted to but havent changed diddly squat about?

Yes.. yes that is a completly reasonable stance to take
But this is still just conjecture. I'm not going to complain about an M Night Shyamalan movie that hasn't come out yet, just because his previous ones sucked. I'll reserve my judgement until I see it, because otherwise I'd be discouraging him from even trying to turn things around.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Smooth Operator said:
dirtysteve said:
Valve, valve, valve, but where's Bethesda in all this? Their the biggest name in mod-able games, I wonder what their take is?
Oh you will be glad to hear Bethesda is launching their own DRM/Digital store soon, to make sure you get the best content delivery system right inside the games where you didn't want that shit.
I'm guessing their debut will go along with some high profile game that is coming up...
What?! Another bloody resource hogging launcher?! OH FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE.

Tell ye what, Bethesda, how about I sail over to your office lobby whenever I want to play my bleeding games. You can observe me play, you can lock the PC up in your safe when I'm not using it. 100% digital rights control. 100% drunken foreigner stinking up your lobby.

I'll bet they'll pack the devkit full with the DRM neccessary for this glorious new order, too.
 

NerAnima

New member
Jun 29, 2013
103
0
0
Olas said:
Karadalis said:
Olas said:
However, since there are no details about Valve's implementation this time around, there's no justification for even that complaint. I guess people are just assuming Valve has learned absolutely nothing and won't try to address the concerns they clearly know people have with this system.
After greenlight and early access and the abysmal customer service they self admitted to but havent changed diddly squat about?

Yes.. yes that is a completly reasonable stance to take
But this is still just conjecture. I'm not going to complain about an M Night Shyamalan movie that hasn't come out yet, just because his previous ones sucked. I'll reserve my judgement until I see it, because otherwise I'd be discouraging him from even trying to turn things around.
Yes, reserving your judgement until you see it, or at least hear about it from people you trust, is a decent idea; however, a good dose of cynicism is useful. I know enough about Shyamalamanama's movies that I won't go and see it without hearing good things from trusted sources first.

Likewise, considering Valve's previous work, including on this in the past, I don't trust them to not fuck this up completely, especially since Greenlight is still a thing.

Discouraging him from trying to turn around and make a good movie is horrible, encouraging his bad behavior is just as terrible, even worse, which is what you do when you pay for his movie, or pay for this mod.

(Hopefully this makes sense to somebody >.>)

Edit: Whoops
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Starke said:
Zydrate said:
loa said:
Weren't there tons of fraudulent paid mods that were just other peoples freely avaliable work repackaged for skyrim when they tried this the first time around?
I guess they are hungry for hand-steak and keep pressing down on the stove that burned them once.
I heard people just reskinned weapons and sold it for 99 cents, as part of how horrible the system was.
I heard they were sacrificing stray cats behind the place at midnight.

But, seriously, no, that didn't happen. There were new weapons, but no reskins. I mean, to some extent with Skyrim that's an academic distinction. The shadiest shit was a mod that actually relied on another modder's animations framework (there was some confusion from Bethesda and Valve over how this worked, and someone ended up putting a mod out with someone else's work in it), and there was a crowbar and (I think) HEV Suit mod, which used the HL2 assets (with Valve's blessing), but it made the entire project look much less professional. The battletoads and spiderman shit in the post itself is bullshit, and has nothing to do with the program. But, since someone at Valve let one of their friends run with stuff, it gave the impression that those kinds of garbage mods were on the way.
Well to be fair I think "skins" and "meshes" are among the least shady parts of this due to those requiring some artistic talent (usually) on the part of the mod creator. They are actually doing something as opposed to just throwing a bunch of stuff together with the toolkit. It becomes more worthwhile if people create their own animations and sound (as you point out). Simply creating say a sword or gun with ridiculous stats and dropping it somewhere in the game world isn't exactly a worthy mod for example, IMO at least. When you add custom animations, a custom look, and perhaps self-created sound effects, and do a good job with it, that changes things considerably.

That said I'm against paid mods for a lot of reasons many of which have been covered here. A donation system strikes me as being fine however as long as it isn't spam-tastic.

I'll also be blunt in saying that the very infrastructure needed for paid mods will probably lead to censorship. This means a lot of "adult" mods or those doing things based on other IPs will likely cease to exist. Valve for example wouldn't host "Coito Ergo Sum" (an adult business simulator/adventure campaign for New Vegas) or perhaps more directly things like "Who Vegas" (massive Doctor Who mod/campaign for New Vegas), not to mention the big question of people taking money for using people's IPs without permission which is usually fine when it's not for profit, but when it's for profit not so much. I mean heck there are even "Doctor Who" mods for Skyrim through the workshop. Let's be fair, for a lot of people running around Fallout or even Skyrim dressed like Darth Vader and using a light saber can be amusing. Once this goes paid however... well even if such mods are still free there will likely be a crack down due to the attention focused on the newly formed industry.

All this aside you mentioned being a mod maker, who was considering getting back into it if mods went paid. What mods are you responsible for? I'm curious.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Karadalis said:
SECOND: However most noteworthy mods dont even contain Bethesda code or assets to begin with since its allready present in the game or are completly independend from ingame assets. UI overhauls? New graphic effects? Extended script libraries? Heck even stupid things like horsearmor or new weapon models are 100% original and bethesda has actually no claim to that work. Yet they still demand 50% of all earnings? On wich legal grounds exactly?
Oracle v. Google.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Any game that takes on paid mods will end up on my never buy list. I will not support such an idiotic system. A donation system would be fine for the devs, not pay to play. Valve are just being greedy and want their 70%.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Olas said:
Maybe I live in a magic Lala land, but from where I'm standing what you're saying makes zero sense. You talk about trying to survive on this system with such slim profit margins when people are already somehow surviving with NO income from it whatsoever.
Stop right here.

The argument that was made by Stark in this very thread is the one i was talking about in my post.

Not whatever you cooked up right there.

People are "surviving" because they have regular jobs

Stark made it sound like if people would pay for his mods he could go back to modding and concentrate on making mods, wich suggests he would do it for a living instead of a regular full time job.

That argument as i showed is a complete and utter pipedream. Along with the argument that somehow being paid a miniscule sum of money only after you finish your project is somehow going to lead to bigger and better mods.. wich it doesnt. If you cant make a bigger and better mod with the resources you have available now a little pot of gold at the end of the rainbow isnt going to change any of that. Till the payday your circumstances are still very much the same.

The only people that are going to profit from this system are not the people who make large intricate mods that change the game or add content to it in any meaningfull way. Its Valve and Bethesda ofcourse because they dont have to do jack shit.

The proposed system does diddly squad to improve the quality and size of mods and only serves for companies like digital homicide to get their ugly shitcovered fingers into the modding "market" by repackaging pre made assets they bought from some online store. You know.. the very same thing they keep doing over and over and over again with steam greenlight and early access?

And thats to say you can even make enough money with this system to sustain a living standard AND pay for legal AND pay for work expendures AND taxes AND wages if you have more then one person on the team. See where this is going?

How much do you want to sell your big mod for? 50 dollar a download? No ones gonna pay that. How about 10 dollars? Congratufuckinglations.. you make 2,50 per download.. before all the stuff i counted out above you have to pay for mind you.

Guess its ramen noodles and a wet cardboardbox on the sidewalk for our capitalist modder... i mean that is also a way of living.. but i doubt its the one modders who fall for this scheme have in mind when they hear the words "getting paid for your mods"


Olas said:
Karadalis said:
Olas said:
However, since there are no details about Valve's implementation this time around, there's no justification for even that complaint. I guess people are just assuming Valve has learned absolutely nothing and won't try to address the concerns they clearly know people have with this system.
After greenlight and early access and the abysmal customer service they self admitted to but havent changed diddly squat about?

Yes.. yes that is a completly reasonable stance to take
But this is still just conjecture. I'm not going to complain about an M Night Shyamalan movie that hasn't come out yet, just because his previous ones sucked. I'll reserve my judgement until I see it, because otherwise I'd be discouraging him from even trying to turn things around.
Shhhh... my common sense is tingling.

Company that has a track record over the last couple of years of implementing half assed and abuse prone features to their market place AND not giving a shit about customer service dispite openly admitting that its customer service is utter shite will SUDDENLY, this time totaly not fuck up?

I have a bridge to sell you... or space ships if youre more into that.. that referal program isnt going to pick off on its own...

Starke said:
Karadalis said:
SECOND: However most noteworthy mods dont even contain Bethesda code or assets to begin with since its allready present in the game or are completly independend from ingame assets. UI overhauls? New graphic effects? Extended script libraries? Heck even stupid things like horsearmor or new weapon models are 100% original and bethesda has actually no claim to that work. Yet they still demand 50% of all earnings? On wich legal grounds exactly?
Oracle v. Google.
Wich has jack shit to do with this since google actually did use "identical" code, no matter how little.

Example:

If your mod files actually contain ingame graphics or code taken from the game and you offer them for download, thats copyright infringment

If your mod simply tells the game what ingame assets to use, thats not copyright infringement.

Not to mention that bethesda allows and encourages modding with their game so they would have a hard time suing a modder even if he sold his mod on his own (granted if he used ANY bethesda assets in advertising his mod that could lead to legal trouble allright) and i have no idea what youre on about?

So what youre telling me.. as a modder yourselfe... you think that bethesdas 50% share of your work is justified?

Woah i hope you brought lots of lube...
 

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
21
Olas said:
I don't even know what to say. I hope once you'll just stand there knowing that something you've been proud to be a small part of falls apart and some wise and logical guys will come and tell you: oh, don't be a bitter fool! Everything is the way it should! Noone takes nothing away from you!

As for mod support - please, think before talking. How many indie devs actually do provide any kind of proper support for their games? And then you in your infinite wisdom think hobbyists will do at least that bit? What world do you live in?
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Rastrelly said:
Just so I'm clear what we're talking about. Is it the particular way Valve implemented paid mods that is going to kill modding, or is the very notion of paid mods that is going to kill modding?
Its the way steam had planned to implement it, what with the lack of quality control, Valve and bethesdas more then generous cut on other peoples work, unanswered question on responsibilities and their "you can ask the mod makers nicely if they will fix their mods if a patch breaks them" wich in all honesty mod makers would have no incentive to do because working on an allready released mod under the system would not make them any money whatsoever.

So the incentive would be to kick a mod out the door and emidiantly go to the next one. One of the mods of the starting lineup not only used someone elses animations but was pretty much non functional.. an "early access" mod so to speak.

Or in other words:

Valve screwed the pooch bigtime on this one if im allowed to quoate TFS frieza
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Therumancer said:
Well to be fair I think "skins" and "meshes" are among the least shady parts of this due to those requiring some artistic talent (usually) on the part of the mod creator. They are actually doing something as opposed to just throwing a bunch of stuff together with the toolkit. It becomes more worthwhile if people create their own animations and sound (as you point out). Simply creating say a sword or gun with ridiculous stats and dropping it somewhere in the game world isn't exactly a worthy mod for example, IMO at least. When you add custom animations, a custom look, and perhaps self-created sound effects, and do a good job with it, that changes things considerably.
That's the point I was making earlier, and repeatedly. It's not that most of the mods were "shady," it's that they just weren't paying money for. That's all on Valve and Bethesda because they're the ones that set the ground rules for the initial offering.

It's a problem that would have been dealt with if the program had been allowed to continue forward. Mods that weren't worth spending money on wouldn't be getting sales. But, because Bethesda lost their nerve, that problem has been trapped in amber as how this "would be."

Therumancer said:
That said I'm against paid mods for a lot of reasons many of which have been covered here. A donation system strikes me as being fine however as long as it isn't spam-tastic.
Which you're never going to see. I mean, a large part of this is that Bethesda wants a cut of this. Actually letting modders get a piece of this is probably the best way to handle it, all things considered.

I mean, we were honestly looking at a lot of old projects getting revived, with new updates on the slate for paid versions. The Sky UI team and Wet and Cold developer(s?) were coming back to the projects to produce new content that would have been time prohibitive before. But, if they were actually getting paid? They figured they could do that. But, now that's all shot to shit.

Therumancer said:
I'll also be blunt in saying that the very infrastructure needed for paid mods will probably lead to censorship. This means a lot of "adult" mods or those doing things based on other IPs will likely cease to exist. Valve for example wouldn't host "Coito Ergo Sum" (an adult business simulator/adventure campaign for New Vegas) or perhaps more directly things like "Who Vegas" (massive Doctor Who mod/campaign for New Vegas), not to mention the big question of people taking money for using people's IPs without permission which is usually fine when it's not for profit, but when it's for profit not so much. I mean heck there are even "Doctor Who" mods for Skyrim through the workshop. Let's be fair, for a lot of people running around Fallout or even Skyrim dressed like Darth Vader and using a light saber can be amusing. Once this goes paid however... well even if such mods are still free there will likely be a crack down due to the attention focused on the newly formed industry.
Yeah, this is actually getting into some serious media bullshit that Valve's actually partially responsible for. By sticking that crowbar and HEV suit in one of the paid mods (at least, I think it was there) they were pointing people right back at the exact kinds of mods you could never sell.

If Valve's people hadn't signed off on it, you could never see that kind of IP infringement in a paid mod. You can get away with it now because of fair use claims, sometimes, but if you're selling it, that gets a lot harder.

As for censorship? Yeah, that's a noose that's going to tighten, regardless of if the mods are being sold or not. We've already seen that with the Elder Scrolls mod community in general. I mean, here's the thing, it pisses me off, but it's caught in the discussion of games as art v as toys. For those who view them as toys... they're going to keep pushing that kind of censorship.

In this case, some of that is, "it's Valve's shop, they get to make the rules," but, it does open the door to Bethesda closing off all other venues down the line. It's something to think about, but, in this specific case? It's not an immediate issue.

That said, if Bethesda did close off free modding on a game, by encrypting the files the way DAI does, or something similar, I think they're smart enough to understand that would be killing their tails. But, if they're not, and they do that, it'll be sad, but I'll find other games to try to keep my attention.

Therumancer said:
All this aside you mentioned being a mod maker, who was considering getting back into it if mods went paid. What mods are you responsible for? I'm curious.
They've all got my name on them.

But, seriously, the two coherent ones that actually added stuff were a magic re-balance for Skyrim that adjusted the proficiency perks to scale the effectiveness of their associated spells organically. (You can find it here [http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/52308/?].) What you won't find is the Dawnguard Vampire compatibility patch. I was working on it when the paid mods thing went sideways, and after the response from places like Brodual to that, I could stomach the community enough to polish it up. This is also a rare mod that can be removed from a saved game without any harm done, because of how it functions and what it modifies, if those vanish the game literally cannot choke on it.

I've also got an unarmored mod on my system that runs without scripts, by adding new perks to Alteration (it made sense at the time). But, again, I know I was working on that when this went down, so the unarmored perks are in there and work. The unarmed combat perks are there but don't actually have any effects tied to them. And shit like Brodual's "celebration" of the paid system being killed are why you'll never see it. Sorry if that sounds petulant, but, like I said, for what that guy posts, especially now that he's flogging for G2A at the end of every episode, I found his response repulsive.

There was also the "enhancement perks" for Fallout 3 that started as a simple perk tree for the Cyborg perk and then later expanded to include genetic and nanotech altered character perk sets. Looking at the dates on the file, I think I ended up having to abandon it because of a hellish semester in college, and never came back to it. Either way, I was never particularly happy with the implementation, and to get it working the way I actually wanted it to would have taken a lot of time and energy I didn't have. Which, I think I said in this thread. (The upload is here [http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/52308/?] if you're curious.)

Beyond that, like I said, strictly very lightweight stuff. There's a tweak for the .45 if you're using WMX to keep the sights on the pistol itself, a modification to the Chinese Stealth Armor in New Vegas that allows you to remove it's helmet (though, honestly, I do not recommend my mod here, there was someone who came along a year or so later, who put out a much better one with reworked meshes), a couple mods that revert the AP and Carry Weight calculations to the classic Fallout (1 and 2) values (technically the AP is classic fallout x10, because of how the AP costs in 3 and NV work), stuff like that.

Weird thing is, I know I published some mods for Morrowind and Oblivion, but I can't remember the details, and if they're on the Nexus, they're not associated with my account. Which makes me think it was probably on filefront or that IGN site that folded a couple years ago.

Beyond that, I had a full combat rebalance for STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl. I think that got posted to filefront, but I'm not sure, and can't get it up and testing. I did a fair amount of STALKER modding in general, and I'm honestly not sure how much of it ever got posted anywhere. But, because of how STALKER modding works, I never kept very coherent archives of my work.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Karadalis said:
Starke said:
Oracle v. Google.
Wich has jack shit to do with this since google actually did use "identical" code, no matter how little.
No, Google used Oracle's API. That's not the same as using the same code. The takeaway is that, if a developer wants to claim the plugin functionality of their game, then you cannot use it under Oracle v Google.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Starke said:
Karadalis said:
Starke said:
Oracle v. Google.
Wich has jack shit to do with this since google actually did use "identical" code, no matter how little.
No, Google used Oracle's API. That's not the same as using the same code. The takeaway is that, if a developer wants to claim the plugin functionality of their game, then you cannot use it under Oracle v Google.
I read the wiki article about that and it all seems to be alot of legal mumbo jumbo after oracle bought sun and was trying to wave its dick around. (and yes the article does mention some small amount of copied code.. what was it? About 9 lines?) Google should have gotten everything sorted out when Oracle took over but they didnt and went along anyways. That was their mistake.

Something that wont happen here because as a said: Bethesda is allready encouraging people to mod their games and even provides the tools and bethesda is not going to be bought by EA or microsoft anytime soon.

Further note that oracle vs google was also a patent violation case. Not only a license issue. So unless Bethesda developed a brand new script language for their games i doubt they could sue any modder over patent infringement.

Plus the argument still stands: If you offer your mod as download and it does not contain ANY of bethesdas original code or game assets there is no need for you to purchase a license from them, thus the 50% cut from bethesda is completly uncalled for and simply greed instead of any moral or legal obligations.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Rastrelly said:
Just so I'm clear what we're talking about. Is it the particular way Valve implemented paid mods that is going to kill modding, or is the very notion of paid mods that is going to kill modding?
It's the idea that modders can actually make money off their work that will kill modding, at least if you listen to the Chicken Little apocalypse watchers.

There were some problems with the way Valve and Bethesda set this one up, but a lot of the tantrums you'll see in threads like this don't really address those issues. They seem to be hung up on the idea that corporations are evil and greedy and it makes modders evil and greedy, and how we're all going to engage in the most abusive behavior possible the instant it's available to us.

The mods that actually hit Steam were half-baked, and the people developing them weren't given enough time to make good mods from scratch.

Some of the modders did engage in some pretty shitty behavior. One of the developers added an in game ad to the free version of his mod, that would pop up mid game, freezing it, and telling you to go buy the paid version. There was the fishing mod which was built on someone else's animation suite.

And, there were garbage mods, like, "here's a suit of hilariously overpowered armor that looks cool."

So, not perfect. It's stuff that could have been addressed. If Valve had given more lead time on this, then there could have been legitimate content mods, like, "here's a new three floor dungeon to pillage" or "here's a quest that will take you all over the province." But, because of the short turnaround, all there was time to do were these really tiny blow off projects... which tainted how the storefront looked.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Karadalis said:
Starke said:
Karadalis said:
Starke said:
Oracle v. Google.
Wich has jack shit to do with this since google actually did use "identical" code, no matter how little.
No, Google used Oracle's API. That's not the same as using the same code. The takeaway is that, if a developer wants to claim the plugin functionality of their game, then you cannot use it under Oracle v Google.
I read the wiki article about that and it all seems to be alot of legal mumbo jumbo after oracle bought sun and was trying to wave its dick around. (and yes the article does mention some small amount of copied code.. what was it? About 9 lines?) Google should have gotten everything sorted out when Oracle took over but they didnt and went along anyways. That was their mistake.
If that's your only takeaway, them maybe you shouldn't be weighing in on the legal ramifications for, well, anything really.

Short version? Yeah, Oracle v Google means you can't sell mods unless the publisher actually agrees to let you. Go ahead, try it. Let me know how that works out for you.

Now, there's a pretty legitimate argument to be made that the ruling itself is bullshit, when it comes to API copyright. But, I don't think trying to explain that to you will be productive.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Starke said:
Karadalis said:
Starke said:
Karadalis said:
Starke said:
Oracle v. Google.
Wich has jack shit to do with this since google actually did use "identical" code, no matter how little.
No, Google used Oracle's API. That's not the same as using the same code. The takeaway is that, if a developer wants to claim the plugin functionality of their game, then you cannot use it under Oracle v Google.
I read the wiki article about that and it all seems to be alot of legal mumbo jumbo after oracle bought sun and was trying to wave its dick around. (and yes the article does mention some small amount of copied code.. what was it? About 9 lines?) Google should have gotten everything sorted out when Oracle took over but they didnt and went along anyways. That was their mistake.
If that's your only takeaway, them maybe you shouldn't be weighing in on the legal ramifications for, well, anything really.

Short version? Yeah, Oracle v Google means you can't sell mods unless the publisher actually agrees to let you. Go ahead, try it. Let me know how that works out for you.

Now, there's a pretty legitimate argument to be made that the ruling itself is bullshit, when it comes to API copyright. But, I don't think trying to explain that to you will be productive.
And youre wrong

It was a patent case! And there WAS some copied code. Not much but enough for the court to rule against google in the second instance and not let them apeal a third time.

It seems you have done less reading about this then i did for the 10 minutes it took me to look up the wiki article.

Oracle vs google has nothing to do with modding. One company infringed on a patent of another company. Even if the infringement was miniscule.

Once more:

Aslong as the files you offer for download do not include any of bethesdas copyrighted work there is nothing they can do. You are not infringing any copyrights or patents here.

This would be like Daimler suing some small manufacture because they sell custom parts for cars to people that like to pimp out their cars. Aslong as the manufacturer only uses his own parts he has nothing to worry.

When you create a mod for bethesda games you arent modifying the base game files in the first place for crying out loud.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Karadalis said:
And youre wrong
I'm actually not, because while the original cause of action was involving patents, I don't care enough to look up the numbers, the API question, which is what went up through appeals was a copyright issue. Which of course, means that if you're modding a game you are, in fact, messing around with one of the game's APIs. From a technical standpoint, I'd say it's bullshit, but this is the same case that granted copyright status to APIs in the first place, so again, if you want to sell your mods, good luck, it could go very very badly for you, if anyone cares.

Also, didn't Daimler or Ferrari do exactly that in the mid 90s, and win? I mean, it's been a few years, and it's a case I honestly didn't care about at the time. But I know there was a case.

Karadalis said:
Oracle vs google has nothing to do with modding. One company infringed on a patent of another company. Even if the infringement was miniscule.
I realize this is going over your head. The case established that program APIs were something that could be copyrighted. I'd be inclined to say, yes, this is bullshit, but it doesn't help you.

Because of how the decision is written, it means that if you have a piece of software that interfaces with someone else's software, they have a proprietary interface on their end, and your code interfaces with that, they can, in fact, sue you for copyright infringement.

Now, I'd say I don't need to explain how this relates to modding, but I just might. We'll see.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Starke said:
Karadalis said:
And youre wrong
I'm actually not, because while the original cause of action was involving patents, I don't care enough to look up the numbers, the API question, which is what went up through appeals was a copyright issue. Which of course, means that if you're modding a game you are, in fact, messing around with one of the game's APIs. From a technical standpoint, I'd say it's bullshit, but this is the same case that granted copyright status to APIs in the first place, so again, if you want to sell your mods, good luck, it could go very very badly for you, if anyone cares.

Also, didn't Daimler or Ferrari do exactly that in the mid 90s, and win? I mean, it's been a few years, and it's a case I honestly didn't care about at the time. But I know there was a case.
Heres the thing thought:

Google used these APIs to make their own product without Oracle allowing them to do that.

You are just writing code that add to the base program, wich is also actually encouraged by the copyright holder of that program. Youre not changing the base program in any way or form.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

One was a copyright infringement and the other is someone openly inviting you and everyone else to mod their program.. wich isnt so much modding the actuall program as to adding your own plugin to it in a modular manner.

Seriously modding bethesda games isnt even modding in a classical sense since none of the original files are touched more often then not.

You write plugins... and as far as i know plugins arent copyright or patent infringements in on themselves if the base program (and copyright holder) allows and encourages those.

I dont need to buy a license if i write a paid for plugin for Google chrome of Firefox now do i?

Heck you would have a better case if you where talking about STALKER mods that do actually change the game files in such a significant way that the only way to remove a mod is most often to deinstall the entire game.

If people started selling those you might have a point.

Also remember that i argued this point solely because a certain someone claimed modders HAD to pay such a steep price of 50% of their sales to bethesda because of liscencing reasons?
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Karadalis said:
Heres the thing thought:

Google used these APIs to make their own product

You are just writing programs that add to the base program, wich is also actually incouraged by the copyright holder of that program.
First off, "which" and "encouraged."

Second, You're "incouraged" by Bethesda to use the software. You are not "incouraged" to sell that. Check the EULA on the construction kit. Then remember that is actually a binding contract with Zenimax agreeing not to use that software for commercial purposes.

You're trying to claim that Bethesda is inducing mod creation. And, you're kind of correct there. But you are directly prohibited from selling it.

Karadalis said:
You are comparing apples and oranges here.
Like I said, I know this is going over your head. I'm not talking about making an analogy, I'm talking about legal precedence. That's a little different. And, unfortunately, you don't understand what that means or how it works. It's okay, just remember, you literally do not know what you're talking about here.

Legal precedence isn't about finding an appropriate analogy, it's about looking for a similar behavior and seeing what the law said there. In this case, you have a piece of code interacting with someone elses' piece of code, and you want to know if that is actionable behavior. At which point, Oracle v Google floats to the surface like the wretched corpse of bad precedence it is.

Karadalis said:
One was a copyright infringement and the other is someone openly inviting you and everyone else to mod their program.. wich isnt so much modding the actuall program as to adding your own code to it in a modular manner.
Modding a Bethesda title isn't "adding your own code to" anything. It's telling the game to access an additional database and pull information from it. The actual act of pulling that data could be classified as copyright infringement under Oracle v Google.

Now, that's assuming you were smart, and used third party editors like TES5EDIT exclusivly. If you used Bethesda's own tools, I've got some bad news. You're not going to have to worry about any of this, because they can ding you for the contract you signed when you first ran the editor.

Karadalis said:
Seriously modding bethesda games isnt even modding in a classical sense since none of the original files is touched more often then not.
Exactly.

Which gets into the API thing. Again, on a technical position, I'd be inclined to say this shouldn't be the case. Describing loading data from a file as using the API is a bit of a stretch. But, at the same time, I know you could get this argument past most tech illiterate judges, and if the defendant was someone like yourself, you wouldn't stand a chance, sorry.

Karadalis said:
Unless you talk about complete overhauls and total conversions where its getting a bit more grey since they are basically new games that use a pre existing game as a foundation. You could get in trouble for selling those.
Yeah, because you don't actually own the engine the game runs on. The other problem comes in that the game itself caries a EULA which prohibits you from redistributing it. It's also copyright infringement.

Either way you cut it, you really can't sell these unless the publisher personally signs off on it.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Google took the java APIs and changed them for their own program. These APIs where aparantly protected by a patent and thus copyrighted. Even more, they actually did use a tiny amount of code from Sun/Oracle.

Furthermore the whole case was never about modding or writing plugins for one of oracles programs. It was about Google taking the APIs and using them for their own product.

It would be the same if modders took lets say Skyrims APIs and used them to make their own game. Wich they dont. They write plugins that only function with bethesdas base program.

Its still two different things here. Youre still comparing apples to oranges because no modder will run off with APIs from a bethesda game to create their own independant game.

And EULAS.... EULAS are smoke and mirrors man.. no one has ever challanged these game EULAS (no one had a real reason too) but depending on where you live on the world they can mean jack shit (mostly europe) or they can be pretty much THE LAWL (mostly US)

Suffice to say, atleast over here in europe EULAS do not overrule laws and are null and void because you are allways presented with them AFTER you bought a product even thought law requires you to sign an EULA before you actually buy a product.