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.
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.