Valve Hasn't Given up on Paid Mods

[Starke]

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.

Same thing as writing a paid for plugin for chrome or firefox more then google vs. Oracle.

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)

Like I said, you literally do not know what you're talking about, at any level. When you have a grasp of legal precedence, then, maybe, you can understand.

Also, the thing with EULAs is, usually we're not talking about commercial infringement. When it's just some guy screwing around? Yeah, they don't matter. When you're trying to sell something, and violating someone's EULA in the process, you better believe it matters.

Also, worth pointing out, we're not talking about EULAs trumping laws. We're talking about breaking a contractual agreement not to take someone else's stuff and then use it to make something you're selling.

 

[Karadalis]

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.

Same thing as writing a paid for plugin for chrome or firefox more then google vs. Oracle.

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)

Like I said, you literally do not know what you're talking about, at any level. When you have a grasp of legal precedence, then, maybe, you can understand.

Also, the thing with EULAs is, usually we're not talking about commercial infringement. When it's just some guy screwing around? Yeah, they don't matter. When you're trying to sell something, and violating someone's EULA in the process, you better believe it matters.

And i say you dont have any clue what youre talking about.

Youre using an example of someone running off with someone elses copyrighted material/code to make their own shit to someone creating plugins.

IT IS NOT THE SAME and its also not a legal precedence for this topic for crying out loud.

Once more: It would only be a legal precedence if google had written a java plugin that cant work without java and the court ruled it a copyright infringement somehow.

But it didnt... it ruled that google took those APIs and the code and made their own standalone product using these APIs wich is infact a copyright infringement on googles part. They should have not used these APIs, they should have written new ones or licensed the ones they wanted to use for their product.

This is not the same as simply creating a plugin for an existing program, with said plugin not being functional without the base program. Completly different beast.

How is this so hard to understand on your part? This court case has nothing to do with modding for bethesda games at all.

And no, EULAS dont matter even in that case. What matters are patents and copyrights. EULAS mean jack shit in the grant scheme of things and are just legal mumbo jumbo that companies feel the need to shove into peoples faces after they bought their products. Wich again, depending on the country you live in can mean that said EULA is void in court.

 

[Starke]

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.

Same thing as writing a paid for plugin for chrome or firefox more then google vs. Oracle.

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)

Like I said, you literally do not know what you're talking about, at any level. When you have a grasp of legal precedence, then, maybe, you can understand.

Also, the thing with EULAs is, usually we're not talking about commercial infringement. When it's just some guy screwing around? Yeah, they don't matter. When you're trying to sell something, and violating someone's EULA in the process, you better believe it matters.

And i say i dont have any clue what youre talking about.

That much is obvious.

I'm sorry, I read that as, "I don't have any clue what youre talking about."

Which, you don't. You have no idea what the words coming out of my mouth mean.

Youre using an example of someone running off with someone elses patent to make their own shit to creating plugins.

No, I'm not using any examples.

IT IS NOT THE SAME and its also not a legal precedence for this topic for crying out loud.

It actually would be precedence. Granted, that's US law.

Once more: It would only be a legal precedence if google had written a java plugin that cant work without java and the court ruled it a copyright infringement somehow.

Then go back and read the case again. Because that's a fairly crude assessment of the Federal Circuit appeals.

But it didnt... it ruled that google took those APIs and made their own standalone product using these APIs wich is infact a copyright infringement and patent violation on googles part. They should have not used these APIs, they should have written new ones or licensed the ones they wanted to use for their product.

Which of course leads to the problem of not being able to interface with someone else's API if you don't match the proper interface. It was the interface itself that was found to be infringing. Which, I guess, if you don't understand the technology at work, would make this seem a lot more random.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS CREATING A PLUGIN FOR AN EXISTING PROGRAM THAT CANT RUN WITHOUT THE BASE PROGRAM

That is exactly what an API is. To put it in very simplistic terms: it's the point of contact between a plugin and the application it modifies or the point of contact between two applications.

Does this sound familiar to you?

Have you ever encountered such a thing in your life?

Do mods interact with the games they're installed in?

Oh, wait.

How is this so hard to understand on your part? This court case has absolutely nothing to do with modding for bethesda games at all.

It might be because I understand what an API actually is? Just a thought.

And no, EULAS dont matter even in that case. What matters are patents and copyrights. EULAS mean jack shit in the grant scheme of things and are just legal mumbo jumbo that companies feel the need to shove into peoples faces after they bought their products. Wich again, depending on the country you live in can mean that said EULA is void in court.

No, they are actually binding contracts. In some cases, they also make illegal stipulations, which tend to get struck down. But that doesn't make the contract itself non-binding. "Do not take our software and sell it to other people," is pretty common, and not a clause you're likely to see struck down anytime soon.

 

[Karadalis]

No, they are actually binding contracts. In some cases, they also make illegal stipulations, which tend to get struck down. But that doesn't make the contract itself non-binding. "Do not take our software and sell it to other people," is pretty common, and not a clause you're likely to see struck down anytime soon.

They are not binding contracts. Not under european law.

They would be binding if they presented you with the complete Eula BEFORE you bought their product. But they dont, they never do that. So no, an EULA is not a legaly binding document in europe. (or atleast in germany) You allready bought a product and then are told what you can and cant do with it after the fact? Sorry but thats not a legaly binding contract. (and no it doesnt mean you can ignore copyright, but it does mean that all the other stuff like waving your legal rights goes right out the window, theres alot more nonsense written in these EULAs that a court wouldnt even bother with looking at)


Also please refrain from quoting me and then editing what i said to make snide remarks in my direction. It only shows that you have no arguments and only go "no u!" all the time. Reflects poorly on you and might draw the attention of mods.

EDITH:

It does seem that bethesda uses its own custom script languages and thus has copyright over it. Whelp i admit i have been beaten in this specific argument.

However it still does not warrant bethesda taking the lionsshare for other peoples work and demanding half of their sales.

Wich i would like to remind you was my original point to begin with and wich you have never adressed once i might add.

that they hold copyright over the script language and APIs doesnt change the fact that them demanding such a huge chunk of money from modders for paid mods is grossly out of proportion with what modders could even earn with such a system.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

In theory, paid mods are kind of alright. If someone creates a decent mod, then why shouldn't they earn something for their efforts? But there are snags.

1) There are no guarantees. A mod might not work, it may be incompatible with other mods you have (there's no way to see if every mod works with every other mod ever), or it might become incompatible with future updates of the game. They also may rely n other mods (as they so often do due to the wonderful, sharey world of modding) so you'd then be paying for 2 mods to make one work.

2) Modders - generally speaking - are hobbyists. They do what they do because they like to do it. Whether they like the process of modding, or the satisfaction of the finished product, the fact is that they're doing it in their spare time because they want to. This is similar to how people (who aren't official writers) create RPG adventures and modules don't get paid, or fans who make wargaming scenarios.

3) As soon as money is introduced things get very complicated legally. Between modders being third party, copyright laws and quality assurance, things could turn ugly for people with limited legal resources.

I think that the best ways to get modders paid are:

1) A donation based system, where only generous people with disposable income would end up paying the modders, meaning everyone benefits from the generousness of a few people. The flaw here is that modders aren't likely to make as much money.

2) The developers pay the modders. I don't mean like a hiring or contract thing, but maybe if a modder creates a great mod with a lot of downloads and/or generates a lot of interest for the game, then the developers of said game could offer some sort of monetary reward. Bohemia Interatcive, for instance, are aware of the very active ArmA modding community to the point where they are holding competitions with 500,000 Euro prize pools. This way, the developers who(especially in the case of AAA games) have plenty of profit are the ones providing the incentive to mod for their game, and the players can enjoy the glorious tradition of free mods, and the modders are justly rewarded. It's debatable that - if anyone - it's the devs who hold the responsibility for incentivising modders since they have to most to gain. The obvious flaw with this method however, is that the devs would be very select in who they reward and may not choose the same modders as what the players would choose, resulting in disagreement and upset over who deserves what. This method also has the biggest potential for legal bugger-ups, buggerations, and buggery.

 

[Starke]

Also what are you actually arguing about here? That bethesda somehow has a copyright to your mod? That they actually deserve 50% of your income if you decide to sell your mod that doesnt contain any of their code solely based on the fact that your mod is for their game?

They actually get 75%. Split somehow between Bethesda and Valve. The modder got 25%.

You know what the modder gets right now? Nothing.

Now, you know the crazy thing about it? As royalties go, that's actually pretty good. If I got up tomorrow and somehow got a gig writing video game tie in novels? I would not be seeing 25% royalties. That's sitting there writing out these entire stories while straitjacketed by an existing setting and meta-plot I needed to pay lipservice to but could not touch.

As royalties go, 25% is actually very good. Especially given this is in a situation where the tools and engine are completely ready to go, and with no up front costs on my end.

It may suck if you're thinking, "but, I made the thing, it's all mine."

It's not, you're using someone else's work to jumpstart your own. And while it's easy to point at, "they're getting the biggest piece of the pie, it's unfair," it's also not constructive.

They hold the superior bargaining position. If you don't like the offer, you can leave it. But, 25% of the income? Even with relevant US taxes? That's not a bad deal.

Someone is literally saying to you, "here are the tools, here is the venue to sell whatever you make, and there will be eyes on it, if you want to do this, you get 25% of everything you sell."

Fuck, that's a better deal than I get now. If you're from outside the entertainment industries, I get where it looks like shit. And to an extent, it kinda is. But, at the same time, it's also very good. Take it or leave it. But, it beats print rates.

Does Bethesda even have a patent on the APIs used in their game?

The thing that's fucking with you is that you're thinking this is still a patent issue. The original cause of action was patent trolling. But, the actual findings regarding APIs was copyright.

Under US Law, copyright is awarded automatically on creation of an eligible work. You can choose to register it, but you're not forced to. This means that when Bethesda originally configured the loading code for databases in their games, they effectively created a copyright for interfacing with an .esm, .esp, and .bsa.

It's a stupid legality, but, when we're talking about potential for legal action? Yeah, it is one that could land you in court.

I cant find any information on this sadly but you seem to be so much more knowledgable that surely you must know if bethesda games use any unique APIs and script languages not found in other programs. Thought from the looks of it it was written in C++ and C# so i doubt they have any custom APIs they could claim copyright over. But then again you apear to be from the US of A where corporations can get away with anything aslong as they have more money then you.

You're confusing the API for the programming language. This is at the core of the bullshit of the Oracle v Google decision. The APIs in use there were standard ones set up for java (IIRC). Here we have modified forms of the APIs that were originally created to load databases by the Gamebyro engine. (I can't be bothered look up the Gamebyro devs). But, Bethesda has made changes to what, and how, it loads data. So, that's a new API, effectively.

If you're looking at APIs and thinking of them like #includes in C, then that will lead you astray. Those are libraries, and can also be covered by copyright, but we're talking about the program actually having the ability to pull data from outside itself. In order to do that, the information it's pulling has to be properly formatted. What Oracle v Google did was say that formatting could be covered under copyright. Which, as I've said repeatedly, is stupid. But, it also sets the current legal precedent.

Seriously, look up Application Programming Interface on wiki or someplace. I know I've been abbreviating the actual meaning of the term for you, but, look at that and then see if you can understand where it fits into mod development and implementation.

 

[Starke]

Also please refrain from quoting me and then editing what i said to make snide remarks in my direction. It only shows that you have no arguments and only go "no u!" all the time. Reflects poorly on you and might draw the attention of mods.

To be fair? You've been getting on my nerves. Go back, see if you can find it. I reverted the edit before you posted.

 

[Starke]

In theory, paid mods are kind of alright. If someone creates a decent mod, then why shouldn't they earn something for their efforts? But there are snags.

1) There are no guarantees. A mod might not work, it may be incompatible with other mods you have (there's no way to see if every mod works with every other mod ever), or it might become incompatible with future updates of the game. They also may rely n other mods (as they so often do due to the wonderful, sharey world of modding) so you'd then be paying for 2 mods to make one work.

Ironically, one of the really smart things Valve did was institute a 2 week (I think) no questions asked refund policy on mods for cases where it wasn't working. After that you were on your own. But, it was a fairly credible attempt to address this.

EDIT: Also, as I remember it, they specifically forbade mods that required other paid mods. I could be wrong about this, but I think they had to be functional as is. Which, leads to issues because that's not how a lot of Skyrim mods actually work.

The only mod I think you could require was the script extender. And, I'm not even certain about that.

2) Modders - generally speaking - are hobbyists. They do what they do because they like to do it. Whether they like the process of modding, or the satisfaction of the finished product, the fact is that they're doing it in their spare time because they want to. This is similar to how people (who aren't official writers) create RPG adventures and modules don't get paid, or fans who make wargaming scenarios.

At the same time, it was an interesting option being put in front of people. Right now, there's no way to make a living as a modder. Maybe some kind of weird patreon setup, but that's iffy, and otherwise? No.

There really isn't the potential for a professional modder. You either remain an amateur modder or get hired into someone else's projects.

3) As soon as money is introduced things get very complicated legally. Between modders being third party, copyright laws and quality assurance, things could turn ugly for people with limited legal resources.

Yeah, this was the biggest problem, flat out. Once you start adding money to the equation, a lot of the moving parts of the scene start to seize up. It's not an insurmountable issue, but we already saw the beginnings of that with the fishing mod. Someone else made part of the mod. As a free release, it was acceptable to bundle it in. But when it's being sold? That's a problem.

I think that the best ways to get modders paid are:

1) A donation based system, where only generous people with disposable income would end up paying the modders, meaning everyone benefits from the generousness of a few people. The flaw here is that modders aren't likely to make as much money.

Actually, it also runs into 3, because once you're dealing with money (even if the amounts are less), you're still heading towards the problems like selling someone else's work.

2) The developers pay the modders. I don't mean like a hiring or contract thing, but maybe if a modder creates a great mod with a lot of downloads and/or generates a lot of interest for the game, then the developers of said game could offer some sort of monetary reward.

In theory I like it. But, in practice, you're kinda talking about hitting the lotto. I mean, Bohemia Interactive hit the jackpot with DayZ, so now they're experimenting. Which, I mean, if it works it could be great. But, convincing a more conservative developer/publisher who hasn't had that specific experience to do the same could be a little tricky.

I mean, the counterpoint would be DotA. Which, hasn't inspired a similar move from Blizzard. And, again, once you introduce money into the situation... you can sing along, right? Which is disappointing.

I don't think the specific way Valve and Bethesda went about it was perfect. But, I do think it was a credible approach to the situation, and if they'd allowed the system to live for awhile and actually find its legs, we'd probably have a better idea of what to do and what not to.

Sorry if that sounds like a takedown. I'm just kinda irritated with how this ended up playing out.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

Snip (I hope I'm using this right, I've never 'snipped' before)

I totally agree with you. Game devs - especially AAA devs - are pretty financially conservative (except, weirdly, when it comes to marketing). Convincing a dev to pay a modder is exceptionally unlikely because modders do their work for free already.

Also, about the lotto point, it's true that I can only think of one mod that can really be said to have drummed up interest or sales for a game. which is DayZ. With things like Skyrim, mods are definitely a huge selling point, but it can't be said, even with the really incredible stuff like Falskaar (which I thought was way better than Dragonborn), that one mod is responsible for that. It's more the modding community as a whole, and that's damn near impossible to divvy up into who deserves what.

And again, legally the whole damn modding machine is a huge shit-show of splintering axles and twisted metal as soon as a penny is dropped into the gears.

 

[Starke]

Snip (I hope I'm using this right, I've never 'snipped' before)

I totally agree with you. Game devs - especially AAA devs - are pretty financially conservative (except, weirdly, when it comes to marketing). Convincing a dev to pay a modder is exceptionally unlikely because modders do their work for free already.

Also, about the lotto point, it's true that I can only think of one mod that can really be said to have drummed up interest or sales for a game. which is DayZ. With things like Skyrim, mods are definitely a huge selling point, but it can't be said, even with the really incredible stuff like Falskaar (which I thought was way better than Dragonborn), that one mod is responsible for that. It's more the modding community as a whole, and that's damn near impossible to divvy up into who deserves what.

And again, legally the whole damn modding machine is a huge shit-show of splintering axles and twisted metal as soon as a penny is dropped into the gears.

The other possibility that comes to mind is DOTA. Which in turn lead to an entire genre. But, yeah, it's such a one in a million thing.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

there was an interview months ago that said fallout 4 didn't have any plans to put paids mods into it, but I suppose that could change quickly...if it does, I'm gonna be pitchforking it up to get a refund on the game.


Still, if they actually do what they are saying and release paid mods "with a new/fresh game", then fuck that game, I wouldn't spend a dime on it just for that decision alone.

Your loss.

"your loss"

oh boy! that's quite the quote there, so much added to the discussion, let's just be confrontational for the sake of it!

I'm not against modders earning some money for a job well done, which is why I support patreons or donation buttons on pages (and have done that to a few already), but I'm completely against the way paid mods were implemented before, and it sounds like they want to implement them in a similar way so I'll be against them again, valve and bethesda were taking home huge amounts of the pie with literally nothing put into it, no customer service, no quality control, nadda, so yeah, damn right I have a problem with it.

 

[Ticklefist]

Steam holds PC gaming in a chokehold and people openly cheer it. Refuse to buy games unless they're bound to the "service." It's the equivalent of a console gamer that will only buy from GameStop and only if they can pay for Game Insurance too.

 

[Starke]

there was an interview months ago that said fallout 4 didn't have any plans to put paids mods into it, but I suppose that could change quickly...if it does, I'm gonna be pitchforking it up to get a refund on the game.


Still, if they actually do what they are saying and release paid mods "with a new/fresh game", then fuck that game, I wouldn't spend a dime on it just for that decision alone.

Your loss.

"your loss"

oh boy! that's quite the quote there, so much added to the discussion, let's just be confrontational for the sake of it!

Wait, I can do that.

I'm not against modders earning some money for a job well done, which is why I support patreons or donation buttons on pages (and have done that to a few already), but I'm completely against the way paid mods were implemented before, and it sounds like they want to implement them in a similar way so I'll be against them again, valve and bethesda were taking home huge amounts of the pie with literally nothing put into it, no customer service, no quality control, nadda, so yeah, damn right I have a problem with it.

To be honest, and I mentioned this earlier, 25% royalties are far better than you'd get anywhere else in the industry. I mean, I can't speak from personal experience with games, but generally speaking, in media, when you're working with someone else's IP? 25% is pretty good. The 35% with Amazon's Fanfic publishing is ludicrously good. But, outside of self-publishing usually you're looking at rates that are a lot worse.

What you get from Bethesda and Valve is a marketplace you have access to (which will drive sales), and finished tools that you didn't have to pay (extra) for. Also, you're getting hosting fees covered, which is peanuts, but it's still nice.

At that point, yeah, it could be better, but I wouldn't cry over 25%.

There were other things, like a $400 minimum (or something like that) when the program was first revealed, which would have been a lot more onerous. Basically, if the mod didn't make $1600 in sales, you wouldn't see anything. But, I think that got scaled back or removed entirely after backlash. I mean, this is a detail I didn't pay a lot of attention to at the time, once they said they were dropping it down to $25 or so.

 

[Starke]

Steam holds PC gaming in a chokehold and people openly cheer it. Refuse to buy games unless their bound to the "service." It's the equivalent of a console gamer that will only buy from GameStop and only if they can pay for Game Insurance too.

Well, this is how cults get started.

We were getting slapped around so hard by everyone else, this looked reasonable... and now... oh god, what have we done!?

 

[Ticklefist]

Steam holds PC gaming in a chokehold and people openly cheer it. Refuse to buy games unless their bound to the "service." It's the equivalent of a console gamer that will only buy from GameStop and only if they can pay for Game Insurance too.

Well, this is how cults get started.

We were getting slapped around so hard by everyone else, this looked reasonable... and now... oh god, what have we done!?

Yeah I'm just as guilty as anyone else.

 

[Starke]

Steam holds PC gaming in a chokehold and people openly cheer it. Refuse to buy games unless their bound to the "service." It's the equivalent of a console gamer that will only buy from GameStop and only if they can pay for Game Insurance too.

Well, this is how cults get started.

We were getting slapped around so hard by everyone else, this looked reasonable... and now... oh god, what have we done!?

Yeah I'm just as guilty as anyone else.

Clearly, our only option is to scream incoherently at passers by and post random unfunny cat photos.

 

[Sarge034]

I love the fuck out of the game, but I also need to eat. If I had the time to devote to modding, and could actually live on it? You better believe I'd do it. But, when I'm looking at a mod and realizing it's going to take a lot of time to actually get it up and running, that's where I have to stop and say, "but, I need to spend some of that time working on something that will actually get me money so I can make rent and live." It's not about raw avarice, it's that (much like you) I do need to eat.

And that's my point. You think that others have all the time in the world or infinite money to do it? You don't devote the same level of dedication to it. It's a pastime, one that you may share with others to enhance their enjoyment of the game. If you want to be paid, by all means start charging for something that was done for free simply because people enjoyed it. I wouldn't quit your day job while you experimented with that though.

Skyrim was not made for love, and the people who made it sure as hell didn't do it just for love.

Case in pint, Skyrim was a pile of grey, bland, "for the money" shit. Morrowind was done with love and pride with money being a distant second.

 

[Starke]

I love the fuck out of the game, but I also need to eat. If I had the time to devote to modding, and could actually live on it? You better believe I'd do it. But, when I'm looking at a mod and realizing it's going to take a lot of time to actually get it up and running, that's where I have to stop and say, "but, I need to spend some of that time working on something that will actually get me money so I can make rent and live." It's not about raw avarice, it's that (much like you) I do need to eat.

And that's my point. You think that others have all the time in the world or infinite money to do it? You don't devote the same level of dedication to it. It's a pastime, one that you may share with others to enhance their enjoyment of the game. If you want to be paid, by all means start charging for something that was done for free simply because people enjoyed it. I wouldn't quit your day job while you experimented with that though.

The problem with this logic is that because I know I can't make money on something, I don't also know how to turn out professional grade work. Which, btw, I do.

Because of this incident, the modding scene is actually weaker for it. I'm not talking about myself; this was bringing long time, top quality modders out of the woodwork who'd abandoned Skyrim because of real life considerations. This could have lead to more attention for our hobby. It could have lead to higher quality standards for mods.

But, instead, we got people throwing a tantrum about how their "free mods" were being taken away. Bethesda and Valve leaving everyone directly involved out to hang. And, it showed a really ugly side of the community. I've always known there were people out there who were on the "you owe us everything" spectrum, but seeing it from Brodual really hammered home how widespread this behavior is in the community. And, yeah, it disgusted me. I'm sorry, but it did.

And, yes, Bethesda and Valve set this one up to fail because of the way the presented it, and selected their initial offerings. But, at the same time, a lot of this falls on the shoulders of people throwing an irrational tantrum, thinking we somehow owe them all our work for free.

I'm not going to stop modding Bethesda games, but I'm probably not going to post any of that stuff online after this. You want work from me? Pay me. Sorry if that sounds mercenary, but, this has seriously soured me on the leachers in the community.

 

[Vigormortis]

First of all: You get a license for using ingame assets each time a developer ships a editor with their game. No this doesnt allow you to resell game assets but that is not the point here because for the most part no one actually does resell ingame assets, they simply use the editor tools as they are allowed to do under this liscence to insert their OWN work.

Except, they do. There are plenty of examples of mods being sold for profit, wherein the modders had to give a cut to the original IP holders. Gunman Chronicles and Day Z being a famous ones.

This is why modders can't sell their mods. If they wanted to they'd have to pay a cut to the IP holders, as per the rules set down in many EULAs.

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?

These people are free to use the editors, tools, and ingame assets as much as they wish, provided they plan to give away their mods for free.

If, however, they want to sell their mods, then they have to pay for the licensing rights to the IP holder. What's confusing about this?

THIRD:

You are arguing a strawman here. Not only do you represent peoples arguments wrongly but you assume that people are completly against bethesda taking a share. What people are argainst is bethesda taking a 50% cut and valve getting 25% Leaving the modder with a measaly 25% for their hard work, when in truth it should be more like 25% for bethesda for providing the tools and 25% for steam for providing store shelf and 50% to the modders (if not even less % for the companies involved).

Actually, I didn't? I stated that to sell a mod one has to pay the IP holder certain licensing fees.

Besides, a 25% cut is actually more then many dev studios get when they sell their officially licensed mods. So forgive me if I find the 'boo-hoo-ing' over the percentage childish.

The reason people are pissed about bethesdas share is solely based on the fact that bethesda is de facto stealing money from the modders for stuff they have no legal claim on to begin with. Its not their code, its the modders code, its not their graphic assets, its the modders graphic assets.

Which were made with Bethesda's tools and content, meaning that the moment the mods are for sale, Bethesda has a claim.

And this has nothing to do with the notion of Bethesda trying to take modders money. Don't be absurd. Modders weren't making any fucking money in the first place. This is Valve trying to create an easier, more streamlined version of a system that already exists to allow community modders to actually sell their mods for a profit. Where Valve screwed up was on the implementation, not the concept.

So a share of 50% is nothing but money grubbing greedy and shows the disdain that bethesda holds for the people that are responsible for the widespread success of their games, cause god knows they themselves are not known for good quality.

Disdain? Are you kidding me? Good gods...

Of fucking course Bethesda would like to make more money. Point me to a business that wouldn't. But this whole affair wasn't about tapping an untapped resource of funds, because that resource received none. The modders made no money off their work to begin with, save for the lucky few who received donations. The idea behind paid mods was to give those modders interested in selling their work a means to turn it into a revenue stream. Something they could have already done, but was vastly harder and less profitable than what Valve tried to implement.

So yeah, next time you accuse others of ignorance you should check your own arguments.

The irony here is palpable. I may have to bask in the beauty of it for a while.

Also my personal pet peeve with this whole paid mod nonsense is the short sightetness of its defenders and modders that fall for it:

Says the person who's making sweeping assumptions about everything.

Pot meet kettle.

"Paid mods will help create better and bigger mods!"

This argument that people could make bigger and better mods because they would get paid is rather cute:

Where do you take the money from to create your mod in the first place?

Remember: You dont get paid till you deliver! If you even make it over the magical 400 dollar barrier that you have to earn AFTER valve and publisher take their 75% cut

Right, and that's not what the argument is based on. (ironic that you called me out for a strawman fallacy)

The argument is that in order to make ones mod more popular, one puts in the extra effort to make a better mod. A better mod, hypothetically, means more purchases. More purchases means a bigger payday.

And why do you assume those seeking to sell their mods have to start big? Those with some modicum of sense would understand it's better to start small, make some profit, and turn it around to make something bigger and better.

And from those 25% youre left with? You have to pay everyone involved in your big new quality and better then before mod, you have to pay your lawyers that you will inevitably need to cover your asses, you have to pay taxes too! Also living expenses and working expenses. And ontop of that you have to support your old mod/s while you work on a new one to make more money!

Which, if someone plans to turn their mod making into a steady revenue stream, is exactly what they'll need to do. Congratulations, you've begun to form a grasp of how business works.

However, this, again, assumes every modder out there will plan to sell their mods and have them be their sole source of income.

Do you really think at the end of the day you will make a living off modding for a single game for a single plattform? I dont think so.

Me personally? Doubtful. I haven't made a mod in years and don't really have much plan to start any time soon. But others? Why not? Why do you assume one couldn't? It worked for Garry's Mod. It worked for Day Z.

If you think you could survive on this system and deliver better mods then if you did it as a hobby you live in magical lala land.

So you're saying one is more likely to craft a quality mod if they're putting in all that hard work for free, with none of the responsibility, rather than if they're being paid to do so and must bare the brunt of the responsibility?

Yes. I'm the one in "Lala Land".

The incentive here is completly on easy to churn out cosmetic micro transactions just like in any other game that has "paid mods" that valve likes to go on and on about. (pro tip: those arent mods to begin with since they dont modify anything, just added graphical assets thats all)

They weren't referring to those content as mods. They were referencing a system designed to allow community creators to upload content into a game and make money off of their efforts.

Regardless, what's your point? If all that these modders "churn out" is simple cosmetics, then the easiest solution is don't fucking buy them. Throw your money at the quality mods instead. Or, not at all. It's up to you. The point is, if you don't like the idea of someone getting paid for half-assed work, then just don't pay them.

It really is that simple. Making those modders who would genuinely like to sell their quality work suffer, just because some lazy fucks want to go for a cash grab, is pointless.

Not on the big game changing or content adding mods everyone is actually talking about when it comes to the modding scene.

Anything that takes more then one person and/or more then a couple of hours in a 3D editor software is simply not feasable as an income source.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions! Your entire counter argument is based on assumptions!

And please, if what you say is true, do tell how it's possible for dev studios, of whom spend many, many hours coding their mods, can survive on their efforts as a source of income. Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[Vigormortis]

And, yes, Bethesda and Valve set this one up to fail because of the way the presented it, and selected their initial offerings. But, at the same time, a lot of this falls on the shoulders of people throwing an irrational tantrum, thinking we somehow owe them all our work for free.

This is the worst part. It was already possible for modders to sell their work, but the process to reach that goal was long, arduous, and expensive. What Valve attempted was to stream line the process, but they royally cocked-up the implementation. Coupled with the 'oh muh gurd, muh free mods are going away!' response, it soured what could have been an amazing step forward for the industry in supporting its community.

It's such a shame.

I'm not going to stop modding Bethesda games, but I'm probably not going to post any of that stuff online after this. You want work from me? Pay me. Sorry if that sounds mercenary, but, this has seriously soured me on the leachers in the community.

This, too, is a shame. Maybe you can at least share what the mods are, if not the actual content. Then some of us can at least see what it was we might have gotten.