Support NeoGAF

[Atilac]

The problem is, as we learned with pre-orders and DLC, that the market will continue to do this even if it only makes them $10/year.

That market isn't the same as this market

What if Valve prevents free mods from functioning?

What if valve strangles a kitten for every entitled outburst? How about we deal with what is actually happening and not get weighed down by a bunch of unsubstantiated paranoid bullshit?

 

[theultimo]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004HYIAPM/?tag=neogaf0e-20

If you buy it from there, valve doesn't see a dime.

If it's tied to a steam key, doesn't valve get 30% when activated?

 

[Exuro]

You still have to play it on Steam. You don't think Valve is getting a cut of what you paid Bethesda for it?

Valve only receive money if the game was purchased on Steam. We've known about this since forever. That's how steam keys work.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Well they created the game in the first place, I thik tha entitles them to a cut.

A 75% cut.... yeah, I do think that's too much.

The cut is the sale of the damn game.

A mod which fixes the game's shitty UI shouldn'tt get them an extra $.75.

 

[Mavromatis]

That says how it is now, not for TES6. I just want assurance that they're not going to do away with free mods. It's really not that complicated. It's a one-sentence statement.



You still have to play it on Steam. You don't think Valve is getting a cut of what you paid Bethesda for it?

They don't, unless they have a special agreement that is different from other publishers.

 

[vcc]

Unity does not have a royalty fee. The one limitation is that you cannot use the personal edition if you generate more than $100,000 in revenue on your project.

They provide a market place and they take a % off that. They also have a 'pro' version for a licencing fee.

 

[Dwalls]

http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/aboutpaidcontent/

Because that's a legally binding statement that's going to cover any and all scenarios far into the future. That's just saying here's what we currently have, which is content that can be removed btw. At best it says that for now the ball is still in the modders court, it doesn't state that the ball is going to remain there forever.

 

[LurkerPrime]

If it's tied to a steam key, doesn't valve get 30% when activated?

No. Only if you're buying it from Steam's store. Valve will make money off of you in other ways once you're tied to their ecosystems, so any new customer (even if they paid nothing to enter) is still a win for Valve.

 

[jmga]

Do we know any business detail yet? I haven't heard any and it seems they are monetizing mods of the base game for U4. The 5% is use of the engine on a certain scale of indie. It grows if you grow above a threshold of sales. They are providing a similar environment to Unity. a base package plus market place they take a % on. 5% for low volume but more for high volume.

It is all well known.

UE4 5% is static and does not grow with your benefit.

Royalty Payment and Tracking

Once you've begun collecting money for your product, you'll need to track gross revenue and pay a 5% royalty on that amount after the first $3000 per game per calendar quarter.

https://www.unrealengine.com/release

And they get 30% of all content sold at their marketplace, which includes UE4 user created content and UE4 mods.

On Revenue for Epic, community members: Epic is going with a 70/30 split, meaning 70 cents of every dollar earned by a community member in the Unreal Engine Marketplace goes to that dev, while Epic Games gets 30 cents.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...e-Marketplace-Open-UE4-Unreal-Tournament-2014

Also, all the content created by Epic is free and you can use it to create your own content.

 

[YuShtink]

That market isn't the same as this market


What if valve strangles a kitten for every entitled outburst? How about we deal with what is actually happening and not get weighed down by a bunch of unsubstantiated paranoid bullshit?

Were you guys even around in 2005/2006 when the DLC bullshit started? Because there were a ton of people just like you claiming that everything was going to be fine, and that all it would do is ADD value to our games that wasn't possible before! Oh gee golly didn't that turn out so fucking well?

 

[Krejlooc]

That says how it is now, not for TES6. I just want assurance that they're not going to do away with free mods. It's really not that complicated. It's a one-sentence statement.

This is precisely why what you are asking is a falacy, because you will retreat back to "they are only talking about RIGHT NOW! Ensure the future!"

it says right there, 'always.'

You still have to play it on Steam. You don't think Valve is getting a cut of what you paid Bethesda for it?

I know they don't. That's now how steam works.

 

[MUnited83]

Wrong. Well, unless you consider piracy.

Wrong. Valve doesnt take a single cent of retail sales or sales in other digital atores.

 

[cdyhybrid]

That market isn't the same as this market


What if valve strangles a kitten for every entitled outburst? How about we deal with what is actually happening and not get weighed down by a bunch of unsubstantiated paranoid bullshit?

Because it's a lot harder to un-fuck things once they're fucked.

Valve only receive money if the game was purchased on Steam. We've known about this since forever. Steam keys work the same way.

They don't, unless they have a special agreement that is different from other publishers.

Fair enough. They still gain you as a Steam user though.

This is precisely why what you are asking is a falacy, because you will retreat back to "they are only talking about RIGHT NOW! Ensure the future!"

it says right there, 'always.'



I know they don't. That's now how steam works.

It's not complicated. Say this sentence in a statement: "The Elder Scrolls 6 will support free mods." That's it.

 

[Krejlooc]

If it's tied to a steam key, doesn't valve get 30% when activated?

no, valve only gets 30% on sale. This is precisely how these rival storefronts work - some storefronts, as an example, will take lesser percentages from the developer. This is actually how these pricing wars work - sometimes retailer X will lower their cut of the price, passing the saving onto the customer, to compete against Steam.

 

[Nokterian]

Nope, they are charging for actual mods. Not only cosmeticsa but actual maps and gameplay mods.

Not yet also there doing it different by the looks of it. For now it's cosmetic only.

Q: I’ve created something cool. How do I submit it to the Unreal Tournament marketplace?

A: This is a new process for us at Epic Games, so we’re going to have to learn as we go.

At the moment, we will only be accepting cosmetic items that don’t change gameplay. We plan to support gameplay-changing mods and even total conversions in the future, but we have some work to do to support them.
When you’re ready, post screenshots or videos and information about your creation to the forums at http://forums.unrealtournament.com. When we see items that look promising, we’ll reach out to you in person and ask if we can include it.
We’ll eventually open up the Unreal Tournament marketplace and make the process more automated.

Q: If I sell my mod/item on the Marketplace how much money will I make?
A: We are starting with the model that Valve uses with CS:GO and DOTA 2. Creators of cosmetic items (such as hats) will receive 25% of the revenue generated from a sale. Revenue sharing for other types of content is to be determined, with higher revenue share for bigger mods.

The principle behind this approach is to share the revenue between the mod creator, game, engine and distribution platform. That way, we’re establishing a business model in which independent game creators have an incentive to support community modding of their game, the distribution platform earns money for hosting and operating the service, and you, the mod maker, earn money for your investment of creativity and time.

 

[Suikoguy]

The cut is the sale of the damn game.

A mod which fixes the game's shitty UI shouldn'tt get them an extra $.75.

I'd not take it as far as Steam/Bethseda not deserving any cut, after all Steam is running the platform you are selling the mod on, and Bethseda went through extra effort to make a framework for mods.

But right now, it's, at the very least, too much in their favor. They do not deserve a 75% cut for what they are bringing to the table.

 

[Krejlooc]

It's not complicated. Say this sentence in a statement: "The Elder Scrolls 6 will support free mods." That's it.

To which you will reply, "But what about Elder Scrolls 7????????"

 

[ScepticMatt]

Do I really need to go on? What the hell do you guys think expansion packs were? How do you think they came to be in the first place?

 

[cdyhybrid]

To which you will reply, "But what about Elder Scrolls 7????????"

Nope. Nice assumption, though!

I'd also be content with "The Elder Scrolls series will always support free mods" though.

 

[Parham]

They provide a market place and they take a % off that. They also have a 'pro' version for a licencing fee.

UE4's 5% royalty fee relates to revenue made from a shipped game. The fee on their asset store is much higher.

 

[vcc]

UE4 5% is static and does not grow with your benefit.

They seem to be doing more to fend off unity. I had thought they had announced some tiering of their rate. I was wrong.

I think the fact so many major publishers went in house for engines may mean they need to compete directly with unity more.

 

[Mavromatis]

Because it's a lot harder to un-fuck things once they're fucked.

Fair enough. They still gain you as a Steam user though.

That they do, and when you install Steam they start selling stuff to you. I imagine it would be irritating if you installed it only for the DRM of some game you bought at retail.

no, valve only gets 30% on sale. This is precisely how these rival storefronts work - some storefronts, as an example, will take lesser percentages from the developer. This is actually how these pricing wars work - sometimes retailer X will lower their cut of the price, passing the saving onto the customer, to compete against Steam.

Just being on Steam adds hugely to sales and the publisher can spam steam keys as much as they like and sell/give it at wherever they want. I assume this will go on as long as GabeN rules the domain since his vision for Steam is a game related marketplace where anybody can sell anything.

 

[vcc]

UE4's 5% royalty fee relates to revenue made from a shipped game. The fee on their asset store is much higher.

The marketplace is what I meant by environment.

 

[Atilac]

Were you guys even around in 2005/2006 when the DLC bullshit started? Because there were a ton of people just like you claiming that everything was going to be fine, and that all it would do is ADD value to our games that wasn't possible before! Oh gee golly didn't that turn out so fucking well?

Game companies == Modders who may or may not want to paid for their work? This is a complete apples and oranges comparison - one is something you paid for having content stripped away, the other is content made by another gamer that you aren't entitled to unless they decide otherwise.

 

[Krejlooc]

Just being on Steam adds hugely to sales and the publisher can spam steam keys as much as they like and sell/give it at wherever they want. I assume this will go on as long as GabeN rules the domain since his vision for Steam is a game related marketplace where anybody can sell anything.

Move that goal post. The claim was it's impossible to play Skyrim without you giving a dime to valve.

 

[jmga]

UE4's 5% royalty fee relates to revenue made from a shipped game. The fee on their asset store is much higher.

There is no fee on their asset store. Epic assets are free.

Community members choice their own price for their assets, and it is never a % of your revenue.

 

[YuShtink]

Game companies == Modders who may or may not want to paid for their work? This is a complete apples and oranges comparison - one is something you paid for having content stripped away, the other is content made by another gamer that you aren't entitled to unless they decide otherwise.

The game companies are still the masterminds of this and are still the ones benefitting the most.

 

[Dwalls]

It's kind of baffling to me to see people defending the next wave of horse armor with the same wide-eyed acceptance that some people defended the original horse armor debacle with in 2006. A lot of people thought the best then too and look at where we are now. It's going to be funny revisiting this thread in 2021. I remember lurking and seeing a lot of posts to the effect of oh well I'll just get the pc version and mod it in. Now it doesn't matter who does it, it's monetized horse armor dlc regardless.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Look, the mod scene is a free-for-all clusterfuck of QA/compatibility issues and resource sharing. You can't just go to modders, say "Hey, let's set up a deal - you can charge money for the mod, as long as we get 75% of it" and call it a done deal. The moment you start charging for these things, and take a cut, it ceases to become a mod, and becomes DLC. And it should be held to the standard of a professionally released consumer product. Compatibility issues with other mods shouldn't be an issue anymore. Nor should stolen assets. But they will be.

Either go to individual modders and contract them to make official DLC for you, or stay the fuck out of the modding scene. Don't put a pricetag on existing mods and say you're helping the community when you're just fucking it up.

 

[YuShtink]

Look, the mod scene is a free-for-all clusterfuck of QA/compatibility issues and resource sharing. You can't just go to modders, say "Hey, let's set up a deal - you can charge money for the mod, as long as we get 75% of it" and call it a done deal. The moment you start charging for these things, and take a cut, it ceases to become a mod, and becomes DLC. And it should be held to the standard of a professionally released consumer product. Compatibility issues with other mods shouldn't be an issue anymore. But they will be.

Either go to individual modders and contract them to make official DLC for you, or stay the fuck out of the modding scene. Don't put a pricetag on existing mods and say you're helping the community when you're just fucking it up.

Yep. Mods are free. This is outsourced 3rd party DLC.

 

[Mavromatis]

Move that goal post. The claim was it's impossible to play Skyrim without you giving a dime to valve.

It is impossible to play Skyrim without you giving a dime to Valve. I mean the average playtime for that game is 112 hours; how long can you resist the temptation of sales or those sweet mods or cards or emoticons or the ability to chat with people on Steam?

 

[Lime]

Move that goal post. The claim was it's impossible to play Skyrim without you giving a dime to valve.

You pretty much have to install their DRM and store service. Skyrim and other steam works games function as a gateway to Valves business

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Either go to individual modders and contract them to make official DLC for you

I don't know why they didn't go this route. Grab the mods in the first wave of pay-for mods, do some clean up on them to make them more official and "base game" like, and release it as proper DLC.

It would allow these people to be paid and at the same time console gamers would get a taste of mods.

And they'd get more exposure and make more money than a random mod will ever

 

[Mavromatis]

I don't know why they didn't go this route. Grab the mods in the first wave of pay-for mods, do some clean up on them to make them more official and "base game" like, and release it as proper DLC.

It would allow these people to be paid and at the same time console gamers would get a taste of mods.

And they'd get more exposure and make more money than a random mod will ever

Paradox do that and it is what keeps Mount & Blade, a 7 year old game, alive so far.

 

[Parham]

There is no fee on their asset store. Epic assets are free.

Community members choice their own price for their assets, and it is never a % of your revenue.

That's what I mean. Sorry for the confusion. Epic gets a 30% cut of the revenue from each unit sold on the UE4 marketplace.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't know why they didn't go this route. Grab the mods in the first wave of pay-for mods, do some clean up on them to make them more official and "base game" like, and release it as proper DLC.

It would allow these people to be paid and at the same time console gamers would get a taste of mods.

And they'd get more exposure and make more money than a random mod will ever

Because this way they can be lazy and let thousands of suckers fix their shit for $.25 on the dollar with zero QA, and millions more suckers will aact like valve is doing them a "favor".

 

[Suikoguy]

I don't know why they didn't go this route. Grab the mods in the first wave of pay-for mods, do some clean up on them to make them more official and "base game" like, and release it as proper DLC.

It would allow these people to be paid and at the same time console gamers would get a taste of mods.

And they'd get more exposure and make more money than a random mod will ever

Yeah, and in such case a 75% cut might be considered more reasonable.

 

[Etnos]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004HYIAPM/?tag=neogaf0e-20

If you buy it from there, valve doesn't see a dime.

Who saw this coming !? ... Getting a "Games For Windows Live Edition" feels less dirty that getting the Steam version 0.o

 

[Dwalls]

Also, why do people in support for this automatically assume this will lead to larger mods, the 2 best selling most profitable pieces so far have been item sets. One of which needs a console command to be added to the game. It seems to me like a smart modder is going to part & parcel his large mod and sell lots of individual bits & pieces as opposed to one large premium price mod.

Who saw this coming !? ... Getting a "Games For Windows Live Edition" feels less dirty that getting it from Steam 0.o

Skyrim uses steamworks, it's a games for windows edition which is a deprecated tag on your box that indicated you supported some specific features on the windows platform like adding the executable to your games list on windows 7 or some nonsense like that. You can't buy and play skyrim without using steam.

 

[Parham]

Who saw this coming !? ... Getting a "Games For Windows Live Edition" feels less dirty that getting it from Steam 0.o

Skyrim is a GFW game, but doesn't use GFWL. It's a little confusing, but the boxed copy still uses Steamworks.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Who saw this coming !? ... Getting a "Games For Windows Live Edition" feels less dirty that getting it from Steam 0.o

I have no idea why that's even on the box. Skyrim has absolutely no Games for Windows Live features and makes no mention of it at all. It's just on the box for whatever reason.

Skyrim uses steamworks, it's a games for windows edition which is a deprecated tag on your box that indicated you supported some specific features on the windows platform like adding the executable to your games list on windows 7 or some nonsense like that. You can't buy and play skyrim without using steam.

Oh, ok

 

[Mavromatis]

Skyrim is a GFW game, but doesn't use GFWL. It's a little confusing, but the boxed copy still uses Steamworks.

And the PC Download is just a steam key that you copy paste into steam. Even Origin has that automated by now but steam de-automated it.

 

[Bytes]

Oh good, another nickel and diming practice from this industry that I will be keeping my money far away from.

The more you tighten your grip, the more of my money will slip through your fingers.

Or something like that...

 

[Atilac]

The game companies are still the masterminds of this and are still the ones benefitting the most.

LMAO they always benefited from mods, and creators can still not charge. Even so, why does it matter if they are the ones benefitting most? Mod creators actually benefit the most, they can actually start earning money from their work.

 

[cdyhybrid]

LMAO they always benefited from mods, and creators can still not charge. Even so, why does it matter if they are the ones benefitting most? Mod creators actually benefit the most, they can actually start earning money from their work.

25% > 50%?

 

[Etnos]

Skyrim uses steamworks, it's a games for windows edition which is a deprecated tag on your box that indicated you supported some specific features on the windows platform like adding the executable to your games list on windows 7 or some nonsense like that. You can't buy and play skyrim without using steam.

Skyrim is a GFW game, but doesn't use GFWL. It's a little confusing, but the boxed copy still uses Steamworks.

I have no idea why that's even on the box. Skyrim has absolutely no Games for Windows Live features and makes no mention of it at all. It's just on the box for whatever reason.

Yeah, I'm most aware of that.. was sort of kidding

Either way is not until you set your mind to get games in other than steam when you sadly realize we are at that point were "Steam exclusives" are rampant these days.

I don't want to get all dramatic about it, but it really sucks it has become the default store monopoly for PC Gaming.

 

[jmga]

LMAO they always benefited from mods, and creators can still not charge. Even so, why does it matter if they are the ones benefitting most? Mod creators actually benefit the most, they can actually start earning money from their work.

Mod creators could already earn money from donations without a 75% cut.

 

[Atilac]

25% > 50%?

0% > 25%?

 

[Atilac]

Mod creators could already earn money from donations without a 75% cut.

They could beg? How about if they themselves decide if they should sell their work?

 

[Krejlooc]

Mod creators could already earn money from donations without a 75% cut.

Not according to the tos.