Valve Hasn't Given up on Paid Mods

[Arnoxthe1]

HOW ABOUT... They just set up a donation system? How about that? Is that really too hard to put in?

Because, they do set up donation systems already and we do have numbers on this, no one donates. At least actual homeless people holding out cups for money make money or all the homeless would starve if treated the same way.

Modders are providing a service. They deserve the ability to ask for money for their service. We just don't have to buy from them if that service isn't worth the purchase. As long as the publisher is OK with them using their assets and tying into their games for profit then there's really no moral or legal issue here. In fact, to prevent them from even being able to ask for a fair wage for their work is where the immoral/legality issues come into play. Bethesda is basically a company that chops down wood and converts it into usable timber. Modders basically take said timber and convert it into a more desirable object. You would have them spend all that time and just hope someone drops a penny in the jar? That's depressing.

Getting something for free is fun but that's really not fair for the modders. We are essentially being unethical in demanding that these workers work for nothing or for only the charity of others rather than being able to ask a price.

We can complain about how much the modder gets (note that Steam took their regular cut for access to their storefront last time and Bethesda also took their own cut for access to their storefront on steam. These are not abnormal amounts). We can complain about how Steam handles IP theft. But those are the things to work on and not complaining that people are able to ask for money for their work. That's shameful.

Please watch this:

(Actual relevant part starts at the 2 minute mark exactly.)

Jim here really lays it out pretty darn nicely. I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers but he, and many others on Patron and the Extra Credit guys would beg to differ when it comes to donating.

 

[Atmos Duality]

This isn't about gamers. This is about laborers. This isn't so terrifying as actual slave labor but only allowing someone to give away their service for free still kinda has the taint of it.

I had written a point by point reply, but this is the place where you go completely off the rails and into projecting crazytown. Apparently, in your mind "gamer" or more accurately "modder = slave". The fact you're even comparing the two blows my fucking mind.

MODDERS CANNOT BE SLAVES.

It is literally IMPOSSIBLE because slavery is by definition "COMPULSORY LABOR FOR NO PAY".
See that first word? "Compulsory"? That's the part you continuously ignore, and that ignorance undermines your entire argument. The mechanical argument, the semantic argument, and especially the moral argument.

If nobody is being forced to mod games, then the motivating value of their labor (why they choose to mod games in the first place) must stem from themselves first; and one cannot be a slave to their own person.

I'm a modder. Have been for nearly 18 years now.
So by your logic, *I'm* a slave! Ignoring how insulting I find that for a moment, lets consider: A slave to whom?
The community? The culture? The Publisher?
No, no, and no. I am beholden to none of those, and participate entirely on my own volition.

I don't represent all modders, but I represent one that will not tolerate your projection.

EDIT: As for the rest of your argument, it boils down to an attitude that screams "If it cannot be allowed to make money, it is not fair/good."

When the value of endeavor can only be "morally justified" by its ability to generate dollars and cents, then morality itself is worthless. Money is just a placeholder estimate for value, but even it fails to properly encapsulate true value, in human perspective.

 

[Starke]

Please watch this:

(Actual relevant part starts at the 2 minute mark exactly.)

Jim here really lays it out pretty darn nicely. I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers but he, and many others on Patron and the Extra Credit guys would beg to differ when it comes to donating.

I did, actually. When it aired and since then. It boils down to two things, steam's got problems, because we couldn't figure that out on our own. And, "content creators deserve to get paid for what they do."

Which, donations don't actually work. From Jim's perspective he might think they do. But in that regard he's in a very fortunate position. With 20k followers, you can expect to get about 40 bucks in donations. Now, that might not sound like a lot, after all, Jim's got 280k, but, unless you're coming to something with a fanbase preestablished? That's not an unreasonable number for a couple years of work. People don't donate. It's not that they're malicious about it, it's just, what Jim said, if you're getting something for free, you won't pay for it.

Patreon's a little different. That is "pay me, and I'll do a thing for you." But, at the same time, because you're stomping on someone else's IP, at any time a lawyer could come up, tap you on the shoulder and take you for everything you own, because you were profiting off their client's IP. You can hide behind, "that'll never happen," at which point all I need to do is point at NOA.

The Steam workshop had a real chance to change things up, and give modders a safe venue to sell their work. Without that, it's still not a safe thing to try making a living doing, because of the legal issues.

The rest, about Steam? That's still true today. It would still be true if paid mods were never a thing. And, again, what Jim is worrying about there, EA, Ubisoft, others getting into this more aggressively? That's the legacy that Bethesda left us with when they chickened out. Other publishers are going to try far more aggressive and exploitative ways to do this because the friendly approach did not work.

Steam needs to clean house. They don't want to. That's fine. But it will destroy their platform if they just keep letting shit like Digital Homicide's garbage all over their platform. It turns it from a respectable Redmond storefront into a pawnshop in Federal Way. Selling mods wouldn't have changed that at all. Same problem, different day. And they need to get serious about it. But saying that was somehow a special problem with mods is just flat out untrue. It's a problem with Steam, and they need to get serious about it.

 

[Kailow Krow]

I'll put it this way.
I'll pay for a mod, when there is a mod worth paying for.
That's the short of it, this is the long.
And yes, they're out there already. However it's worth noting, that most every mod available for purchase was either shit, or had better version for free, made with the intent of being free. And they do set the bar high, but they should. It's good for competition and it's good quality control. It ensures that no money will be spent unless the product is of high enough quality to be worth the money in comparison. That way they don't devalue the product.
Something games in general could use a good kick in reminder. It's hard to want to buy a new game with a $50 season pass or $40 DLC.

 

[Olas]

I've said it before. If they want money for it then they're no longer mods. They're just third party dlc sellers.

Okay, then they're 3rd party DlC sellers. So what?

Words have meaning and power. With that comes many expectations(reasonable and unreasonable). Calling it paid mods is part of the reason why people became so infuriated in the first place and the way the whole thing was set up was a bit of a farce. Had they done this properly, and given it an appropriate term like Third Party DLC, before going public then all of it could've avoided, but suspect the idea of actually having to do something on their end is why they took the lazy way out.

Words have meaning and power because they represent a thing or idea, changing the word doesn't change what it refers to though. Hence, semantics shouldn't really be a factor in any serious discussion. You could be right that "Third Party DLC" has better marketing potential than "Paid Mods", I'm no expert on rhetoric so I won't challenge that; but I'm more interesting in defending the merits of the idea, not the label.

 

[Starke]

It's one word, creep.

Look, if you're going to resort to name calling, this conversation is over. It's pretty clear you don't have anything of value to contribute anyway.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

As much as I don't like relating Valve to EA, this reminds me of a particular representative who tried to wave off all the people complaining about EA's shitty behavior as "just a load of homophobes and whiny Madden fans": either missing the point or intentionally trying to shift the blame.

Case in point, "Johnson pointed to the success of paid user-created content in Valve titles like Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Team Fortress 2 as the main reason why it is intent on making paid mods work." Yeah, the thing is, Johnson, is that there's actual oversight going on before a weapon or cosmetic gets put up in the in-game store, people making sure that the item at least works and isn't made of stolen material (not least because there's limits on what kind of items are even possible to produce, thus making it far easier to police). Something that your storefront (never mind your attempt at Paid Mods) doesn't have. And that's ignoring the fact that if a mod completely breaks in a future game/mod patch, your consumer protections are somewhere between "fuck" and "all".

There are much, MUCH bigger issues at hand here than people getting snippy about paying for something that used to be free, even in a game without a"pre-existing, very mature community". Forget community outcry, forget that Steam has enough shit clogging it up, you're going to have some VERY large legal troubles if you're not careful.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

It's one word, creep.

Look, if you're going to resort to name calling, this conversation is over. It's pretty clear you don't have anything of value to contribute anyway.

I think he means the verb form, as in he didn't want to be called out for using a slippery-slope analogy so he used a synonym instead. Unless you're being facetious.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm smelling something foul brewing in the Direction of Fallout 4. They're going to try to sneak the announcement of paid mods, like, a few hours before the release of the game to ensure everyone's pre-order is already locked in. With the same terrible #*@$ing terms, no doubt. No smaller cut taken off the top by the companies, or option to pay "0" dollars.

I smell a trap.

That's why you don't pre-order. Wait till it hits or till the first reviews hit so you know what you're getting.

Frankly, at this point, I have no sympathy for people who pre-order then complain that they got burned.

As for the topic at hand, I like the idea of allowing donations to the mod makers. A simple "Hey, if you like this, please consider making a small donation". I've seen it with KSP and that game has a massive mod community(which is good because as good as the base game is, mods open up so many doors or just make the experience so much better).

 

[Starke]

Sorry, I meant to get back to this earlier, but things came up.

Yeah, I'd say equating it to protection money is a little hyperbolic. They do provide the tools. Create a ready made market of potential customers. Provide an actual venue to sell in. Cover the associated costs of running that venue.

At that point, taking 75% is a bit steep, but it's not like they aren't offering anything. Granted, as a private developer, you can create all of those things yourself, but actually creating a game from scratch, getting the word out, maintaining a storefront, and actually driving sales is a lot of work, if you take it on.

So, there is value offered. That said, it's not like they're having to engage in all of that work themselves, so there is an economy of scale issue. But, I wouldn't call it extortionate.

those tools and ready made market and venue are all ALREADY there though,have been for years/decades and they are still there, and there are other markets too on top of that, they aren't "providing" anything that justifies getting such large slices of the pie, steam workshop was a SHITSTORM when paid mods first came out, so implemented in that same way again, but just with a new game..I don't see the results really changing on that.

Just because the tools exist, doesn't mean you get to make money on them.

I keep wanting to roll out an analogy, but ultimately it boils down to, yes, the stuff exists, no that doesn't mean you get to have it for free.

I mean, some of this comes down to the part where, calling it extortionate is hyperbole. It's not. You can simply choose not to go after this.

The other thing, and I think this is the biggest disconnect on the subject. I look at 25% royalties, and think, "that sounds really goddamn good." You look at it and think, "what the fuck, I did the work, that's all I get?" The difference is, I'm (somewhat) used to looking at royalty rates that are a lot less generous.

The 25% cut was supposed to be taken as very generous, and it certainly seemed like it to the people setting up the program. To people who are unfamiliar with "playing in other people's sandboxes" it looks horrible. And, it's lead to a serious disconnect.

This isn't Zenimax and Valve being greedy fucks, but for someone who's unfamiliar with this, it looks like it.

Yeah, there are issues with how mod development, particularly with Bethesda titles, have evolved. There is a lot of interconnected stuff, and having paid mods does call a lot of that into question.

That said... this isn't actually that insurmountable. There are a lot of mods out there that don't require anyone else's work. The Script Extender stuff is fantastic, and opens the door for a lot of really great work. So, in the context of selling mods, some special case probably should have been worked out, (like giving that team a royalty from any mod that used their work, pulling from the 75% share), but in general, mods that show up everywhere are the exception to the rule. The only two I can think of are SkyUI and SKSE. I know SkyUI was on board with this. Not sure about SKSE. But, in either case, that could have been addressed.

SKSE doesn't want any payment for their stuff and have no problem with anyone else using it for free or paid mods, but the creator did wish for most mods to stay free, if you want a source I can go find it.

other problems I have with it are:

game updates, the amount of times that games have broken mods or fucked up saves is a laughably high amount, this wasn't a problem so much before when you weren't paying for the 200 mods that you had loaded up in the game. (which this can be circumvented by not updating your game and hoping the mods update soon so you can eventually update with them)

This is rarer with Bethesda titles than other games. I mean, if we were talking about the first game to embrace paid modding being Far Cry 4 or Dragon Age: Inquisition, yeah, that would be horrible.

Skyrim was designed around the idea of modding, and for the most part updates don't usually break mods. The DLC releases did. Dawnguard and Dragonborn both break a bunch of old mods. That said, those came out long before this program was floated, and after major updates ceased for the title.

It's a legitimate concern, and if Fallout 4 is the game they're planning to explore this with, then it's something to remember. Because it's DLC releases will be breaking paid mods.

^so once you've paid for the mod, you're pretty much SOL when the modder decides to just say "meh, I've done enough, just don't update your game past this point if you want it to work." And that's when the customer is getting ripped off, because they have all these paid mods now that they can't use unless they are using old versions of the game to make them all work together right.

accountability...this will be stupidly easy to circumvent, modders are anonymous for the most part so that if they fuck up or "get greedy" or just drop their projects, they can just register under a new name and start over, the only person screwed in this situation is the customers. Once again, not a problem with free mods, if someone leaves the modding scene, then someone else either usually picks it up and updates it via an earlier version of the source code or they just upload the files themselves in a clean version of it since the author left.

To be fair, this isn't really a problem with paid mods. It's a problem with Steam, and it's persistent. We're seeing this with early access titles being released in an unplayable state with no intention of ever actually turning into a game, but trying to slip criticism by saying, "well, it's not finished."

We're seeing this with Steam's willingness to let any garbage through Greenlight. I mean, this is already the business plan of several shovelware companies that are now operating out of Steam, including one of Jim's favorites.

So, it's something that needs to be addressed. I wouldn't call it irrelevant, but it's a separate issue that's ongoing, independently of the paid mod issue.

I know I've said it before. The implementation of this was badly bungled, by Steam and Bethesda. I'm not arguing it wasn't. I'd just be faster to point at the random armor mods and other fluff being the initial offering, and the shit behavior of a few mod devs, than I would point at the unmoderated cesspool that Steam is rapidly becoming. Because, that just needs to be dealt with, paid mods or not.

 

[Sarge034]

It's one word, creep.

Look, if you're going to resort to name calling, this conversation is over. It's pretty clear you don't have anything of value to contribute anyway.

... As in feature creep. That's what that entire block was about, it's essentially feature creep.

I think he means the verb form, as in he didn't want to be called out for using a slippery-slope analogy so he used a synonym instead. Unless you're being facetious.

Feature creep, slippery slope, et all, yeah. But I never did understand slippery slope being considered a fallacy when it's been proven to be a thing over and over again.

 

[Starke]

It's one word, creep.

Look, if you're going to resort to name calling, this conversation is over. It's pretty clear you don't have anything of value to contribute anyway.

... As in feature creep. That's what that entire block was about, it's essentially feature creep.

I started reading, saw that, stopped.

Next time, use a : or ;. Proper punctuation is your friend. It's the difference between "help your friend, Jack, off a horse," and "help your friend jack off a horse."

I think he means the verb form, as in he didn't want to be called out for using a slippery-slope analogy so he used a synonym instead. Unless you're being facetious.

Feature creep, slippery slope, et all, yeah. But I never did understand slippery slope being considered a fallacy when it's been proven to be a thing over and over again.

Slippery Slope is a fallacy because you're assuming that just because the worst possible outcome could happen, therefore it must be the outcome, even if it is unlikely.

So your whole, "paid mods will mean the death of free mods" is a slippery slope. It's assuming that developers are too stupid to understand the value of their modding communities (and it's somewhat true, some are), but, simultaneously smart enough to figure out that there is a market for paid mods, and still stupid enough to choke out the environment that actually helps to generate the market for paid mods. That's a very specific degree of stupid.

Slippery Slope arguments are compelling because they present a (roughly) logical progression of events. But, they assume a specific outcome to be correct, when others are possible.

It also (tends to) argue that any movement will be negative. Which, again, isn't true. This could catalyze modding into a professional or semiprofessional field, but you're standing there saying (something to the effect of), "this is the end of everything I hold dear."

What you're engaging in now is confirmation bias. You remember the cases where you predicted things would go to shit, and that makes you feel more confidant that when you see a new situation, it too is going to go to shit. When it doesn't, your mind jettisons that and lingers on the previous successes, rather than your errors. (It can just as easily go the other way.)

 

[Lightknight]

Please watch this:

(Actual relevant part starts at the 2 minute mark exactly.)

Jim here really lays it out pretty darn nicely. I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers but he, and many others on Patron and the Extra Credit guys would beg to differ when it comes to donating.

Unless you are Jim or can get him to come here to defend his points personally then perhaps you could debate for yourself or even list his points out as a talking point. Jim is not Jesus though we do still thank God for Jim.

My point is that it does us no good to debate someone who isn't here and can't speak for themselves when the points of their argument are criticized.

This isn't about gamers. This is about laborers. This isn't so terrifying as actual slave labor but only allowing someone to give away their service for free still kinda has the taint of it.

I had written a point by point reply, but this is the place where you go completely off the rails and into projecting crazytown. Apparently, in your mind "gamer" or more accurately "modder = slave". The fact you're even comparing the two blows my fucking mind.

MODDERS CANNOT BE SLAVES.

*sigh* read my quote: "This isn't so terrifying as actual slave labor"

The reason I said it has the taint of it is because these people are allowed to contribute to the success of a company without being compensated for it. Sometimes the mods are so popular that they're the only reason to buy the game (Day Z mod of Arma II).

So what we're seeing is studios getting a genuine free lunch and the people doing the work get no compensation for their efforts and cannot even ask for it. Those that have a donation page set up frequently get nothing on even their most popular work.

It does have the taint of free labor but it doesn't go so far as to actually force them to do the work. Hence why I said it isn't so terrifying as that but does carry with it certain similarities when you think of lack of compensation as the second of two major components of slavery. At least bond servants used to get something for the years they sold off and entered into the agreement willfully.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

*sigh* read my quote: "This isn't so terrifying as actual slave labor"

The reason I said it has the taint of it is because these people are allowed to contribute to the success of a company without being compensated for it. Sometimes the mods are so popular that they're the only reason to buy the game (Day Z mod of Arma II).

So what we're seeing is studios getting a genuine free lunch and the people doing the work get no compensation for their efforts and cannot even ask for it. Those that have a donation page set up frequently get nothing on even their most popular work.

It does have the taint of free labor but it doesn't go so far as to actually force them to do the work. Hence why I said it isn't so terrifying as that but does carry with it certain similarities when you think of lack of compensation as the second of two major components of slavery. At least bond servants used to get something for the years they sold off and entered into the agreement willfully.

You know, sometimes the reward isn't even money but a really nice job at a reputable company. Working on a highly-popular mod or mods is a really good way to fill out your game designer portfolio, with some companies even going so far as to reach out and hire the person or persons involved.

Furthermore, making mods isn't some terrible job you make it out to be. A lot of modders make mods because they enjoy it and they want that mod to play with in the game. Or if anything else, it may just be good practice for them. There's other benefits to making mods besides money.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Furthermore, making mods isn't some terrible job you make it out to be. A lot of modders make mods because they enjoy it and they want that mod to play with in the game. Or if anything else, it may just be good practice for them. There's other benefits to making mods besides money.

Oh, but didn't you know? Monetary pursuit governs morality now.

So the next time you hold a door, pick up a dropped object, or warn someone of imminent danger, be sure to also demand monetary compensation for that labor, because labor has value you see and when you aren't being paid, you're being USED LIKE A SLAVE and that's MORALLY WRONG.

And should those people refuse to humor your demands for payment, be sure to browbeat them for holding you and everyone like you back. Compare them to slave drivers, because uh...it's totally fair because MORALITY!
No, don't question the context, this is PRINCIPLE and therefore ALWAYS RIGHT.

I know, because an MBA told me and they're never wrong.

....

Seriously, you're right. There are benefits to creating content other than monetary pursuit.
But good luck pitching those benefits in the face of someone that can only measure things as business opportunities.

As for the right of modders to be paid, they've always had that option: It's called becoming GAME DEVELOPERS.
I do not understand why that option eludes the supporters of this paid-mod bullshit.

If a modder has what it takes, then it makes far more sense for them to enter the professional arena than it does to transform the amateur/hobbyist space INTO that professional arena.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I mean, some of this comes down to the part where, calling it extortionate is hyperbole. It's not. You can simply choose not to go after this.

The other thing, and I think this is the biggest disconnect on the subject. I look at 25% royalties, and think, "that sounds really goddamn good." You look at it and think, "what the fuck, I did the work, that's all I get?" The difference is, I'm (somewhat) used to looking at royalty rates that are a lot less generous.

The 25% cut was supposed to be taken as very generous, and it certainly seemed like it to the people setting up the program. To people who are unfamiliar with "playing in other people's sandboxes" it looks horrible. And, it's lead to a serious disconnect.

This isn't Zenimax and Valve being greedy fucks, but for someone who's unfamiliar with this, it looks like it.

I will agree to disagree on this, I completely understand why people use this argument, since it's in relation to other entertainment based markets, but I still think there are differences in the video game market that don't justify the dev/publishers getting such huge chunks of the pie vs the modder, because then I feel like the value of the mods will get inflated to justify overhead for the modder to make it worth it for them if we are attempting to run this as a business venture, and then the customer is the one losing out while the dev/pub are laughing their way to the bank. There should be a better way that the modder and the customer are the ones who aren't at each others throats over this.

To be fair, this isn't really a problem with paid mods. It's a problem with Steam, and it's persistent. We're seeing this with early access titles being released in an unplayable state with no intention of ever actually turning into a game, but trying to slip criticism by saying, "well, it's not finished."

We're seeing this with Steam's willingness to let any garbage through Greenlight. I mean, this is already the business plan of several shovelware companies that are now operating out of Steam, including one of Jim's favorites.

So, it's something that needs to be addressed. I wouldn't call it irrelevant, but it's a separate issue that's ongoing, independently of the paid mod issue.

I know I've said it before. The implementation of this was badly bungled, by Steam and Bethesda. I'm not arguing it wasn't. I'd just be faster to point at the random armor mods and other fluff being the initial offering, and the shit behavior of a few mod devs, than I would point at the unmoderated cesspool that Steam is rapidly becoming. Because, that just needs to be dealt with, paid mods or not.

I'm glad we can agree that steam's implementation was badly handled, however I'm not just referring to steam when I argue this, I'm arguing for the concept at it's core, regardless of who is the dev/pub handling it, I don't want modders and customers arguing over crumbs while steam or *insert market here* is gorging like jabba the hutt on the cookies.

I do have a problem with greenlight and early access, but there is also ALOT more effort that is involved with greenlight and early access, so even though I don't personally buy anything off of there, there is extra layers of effort and money involved before the possible scammers can see any cash flow. The only thing I will say though is that greenlight and early access are sort of new concepts to the industry, while mods have been around forever, so you're somewhat dipping into an already existing market with mods and trying to change it, while early access style games haven't really been anything before (no one's really had the cash/access to develop games as they go, they've pretty much always needed a developer or something of some sort, short of a few miracles).

 

[ChaoGuy2006]

I've long since given up on Steam.

I still play games on it mind you.
If it's a very cheap game, or a game that will only amuse me for a few hours, I'll buy it on Steam.

But if it's a "full" game ($35+ or something I can see putting 10 hours+ into) then I'll get it physical or through Good Old Games.

Why do I want to keep giving a cut to Valve all the time? Sure they do sales, but is it worth it to just encourage them to do stuff like this?

Mark my words, they'll try "rental" (pay X per hour to access a game everyone else got physically for as long as they wanted). Broadcasts are a waste of time, since everyone crowds in on the top few guys, a few other alterations are minor, and apart from encouraging more Linux games (which is a big plus), they've not DONE anything special.

After this, it's GOG or bust for me. At least I don't have to always be online.

 

[sanamia]

I was just chipping away at writing a walk-through for a mod when I realized something.

I respect this certain mod author and I know he would never ever be able to get paid for his work anyway. It involves dozens of mods and snippets from other mods and whatnot. I spend hours trying to work on the walk-through for more quests and content then in any of the official DLC's that skyrim has... Heck basically this mod adds something to everything in skyrim and it's DLC's and then it adds dozens of other mods through compatibility patches and integration and whatnot. Above that it adds dungeons and quest-lines and basically everything you can imagine.

And here I sit chipping away trying to put in detailed information for thousands of items, hours and hours of quest-lines trying to break everything and find out why stuff goes wrong. what mods conflict and what is just a bad install.

But you know what when a mod of that scope was ever to be paid, I would not write page upon page for a wiki. I would not write a whole walk-through on my own. I would not try to break it in every conceivable and inconceivable way to ensure as much people as possible can enjoy a bug-free game.

Yes I enjoy beta testing stuff and ruining your well laid out plans. I don't mind testing the obscure and weird and then writing everything down so nobody has to ask stupid questions (they'll do it anyway)

But here's the thing the second mods cost money I fracking demand that wiki was written before I touch it. I demand you ensured every obscure mod setup was tested and will work flawlessly. I will demand you do all that what I did for free BEFORE ever asking a single dime!

Captcha: Ford describe this brand with any words.... Never would have guessed that F word would have been accepted.