Support NeoGAF

[Dorsal Axe]

Woah. I think Valve's done. Beginning of a downfall for them.

I'm glad this debacle is finally making people question Valve (whether it's for the right reasons or not). The blind adoration and worship of them was actually pretty embarrassing, if not disturbing. I do think Bethesda share a lot of blame for this whole thing too, but on more on that in a bit.

Your mod isn't going to sell unless its of high quality. People expect a solid product if they enter into a financial agreement.
This will motivate more professionals to join the scene and current modders to elevate the quality of the product as there is financial incentive.

That's not a given. You only have to look at The Sims community to see that a lot of paid custom content is of low quality and still manages to sell. In fact, in TS2 days there was a forum that was devoted to pirating and fixing this buggy-ass content, which then led to a hilariously sad parallel of the industry where some pirated mods were better quality than the legitimate version...

How is this going to affect tutorial content and the open sharing of just how something or another was achieved. I'm coming at this from a perspective of other monetized industries. People tend to be really secretive in some of them and treat their methods like the most hallowed of secrets because they know somebody else being capable of replicating what they're doing is going to cut into their profits. In the modding scene of old those secrets didn't exist and people freely shared that knowledge. Take for example chesko figuring out how to do multithreading in papyrus, if that gave his mods a distinct performance benefit to other mods on the workshop and he'd make money off of that how likely would he be willing to share that knowledge? I mean this thought is likely largely irrelevant for Skyrim modding because I doubt there's a whole lot left to figure out and all of that knowledge is out there. But for future iterations of the workshop I'd see this as a barrier to "great content" that currently isn't there. That collaborative effort and hunt for new tricks and techniques is going to be inadvertently hampered by this change. I'm sure a lot of current incredibly awesome mods wouldn't exist if someone else hadn't shared how they'd figured out to do something.

Take the music industry for example, people are beyond secretive in that and they treat plugins and tools they use to achieve a specific sound as if it was the holy grail of knowledge because they know that's what's earning them their money and as someone trying to figure all of it out it's kind of infuriating and it feels like you're spending 90% of your time reinventing the wheel because the guy that invented it is being an ass about sharing his secrets.

Yeah this what concerns me most about this whole thing. Personally I'm always ripping apart mods to learn how they function. It's not uncommon for mods to be improved by other individuals who have done so and chosen to contribute their findings to the project. I guess this will boil down into what Wrye calls "cathedral" vs "parlor" modding. Obviously free modding isn't going anywhere, though less collaboration always makes me sad.


Anyway, I think there's a lot of different issues at play here. Perhaps it would be good to break them down.

• People don't want to pay for mods. Duh. What was once free, is no longer. Of course people won't react well to that. Perhaps if Valve had approached it with a bit more sensitivity, instead of colluding in secret and just dropping the bomb, they wouldn't be receiving such a hostile reception. I do feel the rage is being fueled because players are already being increasingly nickled and dimed by companies; evidently something has to give with this practice.
  
• Valve and Bethesda's implementation is anti-consumer. This is a big issue, and I suspect Bethesda are largely to blame for this one, since Valve curates content for their own games. Bethesda want to sit back and just collect the money, taking a "hands-off" approach and letting the community sort it out amongst themselves. Got a problem with a mod? Sort it out with the creator. They aren't cooperating? Bad luck. Realised your paid mods aren't compatible? lol Their refund policy is not compatible with this approach; there is no guarantee of quality, or protection against future abuses. Obviously no one expects them to be omniscient over this, but 24 hours is not good enough. Incidentally, these aren't necessarily issues with Valve's approach, and Valve isn't universally seen as a consumer friendly company in the first place.
  
• The cut between Valve, Bethesda and the mod creator is not seen as fair. Certainly Bethesda's cut needs to be reexamined, as Skyrim's modding scene existed long before they clamped down and Bethesda stopped supporting the game years ago. A lot of mods for Bethesda games are community bug fixes, so the possibility of Bethesda profiting from that is legitimately repulsive.
  
• This system is being abused. Already we've seen stolen content, unauthorized use of assets, free mods taken down, early access, premium versions, ads being put into old mods etc. This is a valid concern, since Valve have historically taken a relaxed approach to dealing with these issues, and Bethesda have already stated that they want to remain above it all.
  
• Several of the aforementioned abuses have been conducted by some prominent modders in the community. I think this is why the community is considering the situation a betrayal. It's one thing to participate in this new system, but I don't think many people expected these guys to behave like this. While the creators have had a truly ugly reception from players that I don't condone, this incident has also exposed some toxic attitudes among some of these individuals (at least to those who never noticed beforehand ). I think this is going to leave a much stronger negative lasting impression on the community than the concept itself.
  
• Big corps moving in. What does this mean for the future? Will mod tools and documentation become more widespride? But will modding be restricted to selected services? Would more expensive mods one day be promoted over free and less expensive ones? Will companies feel incentive to further decline the quality of their games? This is new territory and people are right to be skeptical. If anything, Steam needs to be decentralized, not the opposite.

tl;dr this whole shitstorm was avoidable. Though, maybe...that's the point?

 

[Suikoguy]

I'm glad this debacle is finally making people question Valve (whether it's for the right reasons or not). The blind adoration and worship of them was actually pretty embarrassing, if not disturbing. I do think Bethesda share a lot of blame for this whole thing too, but on more on that in a bit.

In the back of most people's minds there is a hope that a company can exist to both make a profit and for the betterment of the community and industry they are in.

Unfortunately, the power and money influence is almost always greater. Which is unfortunate, because for long term profits and success, they should not succumb to that. But it almost always happens due to human nature.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I feel like 25% looks like a low number, but if you're really successful at making mods, your potential customer base is... STEAM'S customer base and anyone who has purchased the game. That feels... powerful. I wonder how many people own skyrim on steam.

Purity appears to about 900 subscribers. I'll assume they all paid 3 bucks for the mod. That is 2700 dollars total. That is almost 700 bucks before taxes (perhaps other fees need to be deducted as well). And that is only the sales for 2-3 days.

Now granted, I have no idea how long it took for them to develop purity and it is clearly a mod that has been iterated upon for years (the description says 3 years in development). It is likely a paltry sum compared to the amount of time put in. However, imagine if the mod was being sold, supported and iterated upon for 3 years. They'd probably have made a very fine amount of cash/work hour.

Also it is a bit weird on the one hand people are saying paid mods are going to extinguish free mods and all of a sudden all the modders who were community driven are suddenly greedy selfish bastard with cash signs in their eyes, while on the other hand some are outraged at the fact that people other than the modders are making money. Some people seem to be saying both.

Anyway, I remain cautiously optimistic about paid mods. I still don't see something I would be particularly interested in paying for myself. I guess purity sounds pretty good but that doesn't appeal to me in particular.

 

[GECK]

How is it shitty?

Exploiting cheap labor in an unregulated market. How is it not shitty?

 

[Grief.exe]

Yes, three fourths of every dollar earned by what you created evaporating is a very good deal. C'mon now. There's no reason it needs to be this way. Valve should take a very minor cut as a facilitator, and the publisher/modder split should be far more equitable.

I'd agree if they actually DID STUFF, but as it stands they basically do nothing, no QA, Quality Control, Compatibility Checking, etc etc. And they expect 75% for doing nothing.
The current model, they deserve no more then 50%, ideally closer to 25%.

The 25-30% cut by the retailer is essentially an industry standard. Sure, Valve has existing infrastructure in place, and likely already paid their lawyer's retainer, so they are going to leverage high profit margins per sale.

Just out of curiosity what are the similar types of deals in this industry?

That statement was mostly in reference to this Dean Hall interview on Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...hs-in-on-paid-skyrim-mods-your-turn-rockstar/

He seemed to imply that work using existing tools and licences would net significantly less share of the profits in the industry.

I feel like 25% looks like a low number, but if you're really successful at making mods, your potential customer base is... STEAM'S customer base and anyone who has purchased the game. That feels... powerful. I wonder how many people own skyrim on steam.

Purity appears to about 900 subscribers. I'll assume they all paid 3 bucks for the mod. That is 2700 dollars total. That is almost 700 bucks before taxes (perhaps other fees need to be deducted as well). And that is only the sales for 2-3 days.

Now granted, I have no idea how long it took for them to develop purity and it is clearly a mod that has been iterated upon for years (the description says 3 years in development). It is likely a paltry sum compared to the amount of time put in. However, imagine if the mod was being sold, supported and iterated upon for 3 years. They'd probably have made a very fine amount of cash/work hour.

Also it is a bit weird on the one hand people are saying paid mods are going to extinguish free mods and all of a sudden all the modders who were community driven are suddenly greedy selfish bastard with cash signs in their eyes, while on the other hand some are outraged at the fact that people other than the modders are making money. Some people seem to be saying both.

Anyway, I remain cautiously optimistic about paid mods. I still don't see something I would be particularly interested in paying for myself. I guess purity sounds pretty good but that doesn't appeal to me in particular.

Skyrim has the better part of 13 million sales on Steam

http://steamspy.com/search.php?s=skyrim

Ars Technica's report came to similar numbers.

 

[Etnos]

It doesn't sound very good, but it is actually a very good deal.

And I thought Apple's 30% cut from app store sales was borderline a rip off

I guess the bar keeps moving.

 

[The Llama]

And I thought Apple's 30% cut from app store sales was borderline a rip off

I guess the bar keeps moving.

Gotta protect dat corporate IP.

Spoiler

Seriously though, I understand not getting 100% of the revenue, but 25% is crazy.

 

[ashecitism]

And I thought Apple's 30% cut from app store sales was borderline a rip off

That's the standard industry cut as far as I'm aware and iirc only Humble Store take less.

 

[FyreWulff]

And I thought Apple's 30% cut from app store sales was borderline a rip off

I guess the bar keeps moving.

Let's not be disingenuous. In the App store situation, there are only two entities involved, you and Apple.

In this situation, there are three entities involved: you, Bethesda, and Valve. Your cut will drop.

When you sell retail, your cut drops even further, because there's more entities involved in getting your game from the factory to the floor.

Could the cut be higher for the mod developer? Sure. But you can't directly compare two different situations.

I'd agree if they actually DID STUFF, but as it stands they basically do nothing, no QA, Quality Control, Compatibility Checking, etc etc. And they expect 75% for doing nothing.
The current model, they deserve no more then 50%, ideally closer to 25%.

Bandwidth and the programming and support of the Steam client aren't free.

 

[draetenth]

I haven't played Skyrim in years, but I'm kinda tempted to buy it just to support paid mods.

Eh, it's fine if you want to buy mods to support the idea of paid mods, but I would caution you against just blindly buying this debut pack. Wet and Cold and Purity are pretty safe bets as good and legitimate mods that do add a lot to the game, but the rest are kind of bad. I suppose Midas Magic Gold Edition would be fine, except the author put pop-ups in the free version to get you to buy the paid version (which just strikes me as wrong even if I don't mind the concept of paid mods) and the rest are just like standard DLC anywhere else that nickel and dime you - just added weapons and armor. IMO, blindly buying the debut pack would tell those mod authors you are fine with what they are doing...

Also, while looking at Wet and Cold, I've noticed two things: the original (and inflammatory) comment threads seem to be gone and the top of the page says a DMCA takedown notice was placed on it...

 

[Durante]

Several of the aforementioned abuses have been conducted by some prominent modders in the community. I think this is why the community is considering the situation a betrayal. It's one thing to participate in this new system, but I don't think many people expected these guys to behave like this. While the creators have had a truly ugly reception from players that I don't condone, this incident has also exposed some toxic attitudes among some of these individuals (at least to those who never noticed beforehand ). I think this is going to leave a much stronger negative lasting impression on the community than the concept itself.

By far my strongest lasting negative impression of this is of the users of mods, not their creators. What I've seen from them is far more "toxic" than anything any modder has done.

I've never believed in gamer entitlement until this blew up.

 

[Grief.exe]

And I thought Apple's 30% cut from app store sales was borderline a rip off

I guess the bar keeps moving.

Of course, in that example, Apple didn't also take on massive risk and a massive initial investment to create the tools for the developers to create the game.

It honestly pains me to come off as purely defensive of these practices, but this thread is a carnival of stupid I don't think I've ever witnessed. I would thoroughly enjoy openly discussing the positives and negatives of such a change, instead of playing devil's advocate to people incapable of seeing the other side.

I'm sorry if my frustration is beginning to boil over, but this is ridiculous.

 

[Suikoguy]

Bandwidth and the programming and support of the Steam client aren't free.

So you think that 75% is fair for bandwidth and maintaining the steam client and use of IP?

 

[Etnos]

Let's not be disingenuous. In the App store situation, there are only two entities involved, you and Apple.

In this situation, there are three entities involved: you, Bethesda, and Valve. Your cut will drop.

Still doesn't explains why the 3rd entity who already sold you software is getting the biggest cut? 40% for Bethesda

I'm not being naive, its damn awful business proposition... they basically charging for pseudo dev tools with a royalty model, which is higher than every other proper dev tool out there.

And again, they already sold you the game.

Of course, in that example, Apple didn't also take on massive risk and a massive initial investment to create the tools for the developers to create the game.

I don't want to come across as a Apple champion here but this argument doesn't hold. Unlike Bethesda and Valve, Apple:

- Has invest billions and decades of work in their development tools
- Provide development tools for free as long as you have an apple device
- Apple devices take billions in R&D
- Apple actually invest a lot on marketing for its ecosystem
- They actually have Sprite Kit and Metal for free in Xcode, easily 2 of my favorite dev tools out there.
- Unlike Valve they at least try to do some curartion for their apps store
- They have a huge costumer service infraestructure

and so on and on...

As I said I do think that 30% cut is still good old coorporate greed, but I find myself more keen to justify it than Bethesda-Valve's cut.

 

[HariKari]

Of course, in that example, Apple didn't also take on massive risk and a massive initial investment to create the tools for the developers to create the game.

The Workshop is provided for free in exchange for the increased sales it brings. It's a small part of the overall platform. That doesn't entitle Valve to an "industry standard" cut of every transaction. Valve itself only takes 5% from market transactions, a far more reasonable standard.

 

[Grief.exe]

Still doesn't explains why the 3rd entity who already sold you software is getting the biggest cut? 40% for Bethesda

I'm not being naive, its damn awful business proposition... they basically charging for pseudo dev tools with a royalty model, which is higher than every other proper dev tool out there.

And again, they already sold you the game.

Spoiler

50%

The Workshop is provided for free in exchange for the increased sales it brings. It's a small part of the overall platform. That doesn't entitle Valve to an "industry standard" cut of every transaction. Valve itself only takes 5% from market transactions, a far more reasonable standard.

I'm referring to Bethesda's cost inherent to developing the game, marketing, distribution, and other assorted costs.

 

[draetenth]

By far my strongest lasting negative impression of this is of the users of mods, not their creators. What I've seen from them is far more "toxic" than anything any modder has done.

I've never believed in gamer entitlement until this blew up.

Yeah, I'm going to agree. I mean it would be one thing if all mods were becoming paid, but it should be obvious that the free ones aren't going away. I can understand being annoyed that what may be the closest to a must have mod like SkyUI being locked behind a paywall. I can understand wanting to let everyone know that you don't think mods behind a paywall for various reasons (bad precedence, just a hobby, whatever), but there is no need for some of this toxicity and vitriol that is being bandied about. It is coming from everywhere, but I agree with Durante - by far the most toxic stuff has come from the users... It might be me, but that just doesn't strike me as a way to get people on your side..

 

[FyreWulff]

So you think that 75% is fair for bandwidth and maintaining the steam client and use of IP?

They aren't taking the entire 75%. The 75% is split between Bethesda and Valve. The assumption is that it's 25 you / 30 valve / 45 bethesda.

When you made content for Rock Band via Xbox Live the split was roughly 30 you / 30 harmonix / 40 Microsoft

Still doesn't explains why the 3rd entity who already sold you software is getting the biggest cut? 40% for Bethesda

I'm not being naive, its damn awful business proposition... they basically charging for pseudo dev tools with a royalty model, which is higher than every other proper dev tool out there.

And again, they already sold you the game..

You're essentially paying a license cut to use Skyrim's IP, engine, and world to sell your content into. That's why it'd be a higher royalty than using just a base engine.

It's sort of like how you can buy a music CD and edit and remix the songs on the disc for your own private use, but if you want to make commercial use of the music on the CD, you have to pay a royalty share to use the music and branding that uses the content of that CD to help sell your content.

 

[HariKari]

I'm referring to Bethesda's cost inherent to developing the game, marketing, distribution, and other assorted costs.

And this entitles them to all revenue until the heat death of the universe? Can you answer the question as to why modders should now be creating what is essentially the paid DLC for publishers?

 

[ScepticMatt]

I've never believed in gamer entitlement until this blew up.

The amount of vitrol on reddit and elsewhere has surprised me ... maybe I shouldn't have been but it's disappointing nonetheless.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

By far my strongest lasting negative impression of this is of the users of mods, not their creators. What I've seen from them is far more "toxic" than anything any modder has done.

I've never believed in gamer entitlement until this blew up.

The Internet is doing what the Internet always does.

It has little to do with "entitlement" and that's such loaded term these days anyway it's basically meaningless

 

[Atilac]

So you think that 75% is fair for bandwidth and maintaining the steam client and use of IP?

If you don't, then don't make and sell a mod on the market.

 

[Lesath]

Spoiler

50%

I'm referring to Bethesda's cost inherent to developing the game, marketing, distribution, and other assorted costs.

Well, again, not to contest Bethesda's right to charge whatever they want (because they do have the right to charge whatever they want), but the argument can also be made that the value of their IPs have been inflated by the contributions mod authors have made over the years. When I bought their game, 50% was that I was going to have a free-roam experience in Tamriel, and 50% was from the expectation that I would be able to mod the hell out of it for free (and for the authors, to have access to decent tools to mod the game). This is inherently in the value of the game that people have decided to purchase. So while Bethesda doesn't have to give the authors a bigger cut, I think they should.

 

[water_wendi]

well this response fits with my previous post

say what you want about Valve but it's cool to get something direct and someone own up and be aware of why people are unhappy

granted, it's a shame this only seems to happen whenever Gabe Newell shows up somewhere

Direct? That response is a complete non-answer.

 

[Grief.exe]

And this entitles them to all revenue until the heat death of the universe? Can you answer the question as to why modders should now be creating what is essentially the paid DLC for publishers?

Modders were creating content before this program, and will continue doing so afterwords. Whether you decide to arbitrary attach a label to it is your prerogative.

The reality here is, content creators were unable to charge for mods previously as they did not officially licence the product. Now Bethesda has legally allowed them the ability to sell derivative work from their intellectual property.

Well, again, not to contest Bethesda's right to charge whatever they want (because they do have the right to charge whatever they want), but the argument can also be made that the value of their IPs have been inflated by the contributions mod authors have made over the years. When I bought their game, 50% was that I was going to have a free-roam experience in Tamriel, and 50% was from the expectation that I would be able to mod the hell out of it for free. This is inherently in the value of the game that people have decided to purchase. So while Bethesda doesn't have to give the authors a bigger cut, I think they should.

I agree, I think 50% cut to Bethesda frankly ludicrous. Especially considering Skyrim is nearing 15 million sales on PC alone, much of that on the backs of modders. Give credit where credit is due.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

All about that 25%

Like I said, 25% feels low, but that 13 million potential customer base feels powerful.

You can't just go by your emotional reaction. It is all about the number crunching.

Imagine if your favorite mod was sold, supported, and iterated upon for 3 years. It would have surely wracked up a decent earning, even at 25% because the customer base is huge and the mod developer spends literally nothing out of pocket to get that exposure and distribution. Your favorite mod would have access to more funding, meaning better development, better assets, more attention from the mod developer.

People remark that modding is so dependent on sharing seem to often forget that in order to use assets of another they need permission anyway (legally at least, I don't know if they functionally do but I am pretty sure that if someone steals your content and distributes for free steam has a DMCA option). Now that money is involved, surely no one will give permission? Wrong, I think, because now that the mod is making money they can... share it. If a mod uses another mod to become successful, why shouldn't all parties involved on that side of the equation get a share? If X modder creates a magnificent mod tool that all others use to create their mods upon, why shouldn't that guy get 10 cents or something of every sale? If someone thinks they can do better or sell for less (sell from modder to modder at this point), then that'll happen. And if someone does the work for free, then you have a product for free as well. Options at this point.

Anyway, I feel like a lot of people are thinking about this emotionally rather than critically. The 25% feels low, but can churn out big numbers. Giving bethesda money might feel bad, but they're the people who you require acceptance from to sell mods in the first place. Giving steam money might feel bad too, but they're making your product available to millions of people at no upfront cost.

Imagine if skyrim supported sold mods from the beginning. 3 years of sales at 1-3 dollars (discounts/sales etc). Imagine if your mod somehow reached a mere 5% of the playerbase (13mil as established previously). At a 2 dollar average sale (mods could be sold for more than 3 bucks if they are really good), that comes out to be over 100k per year salary (over 3 years, not including taxes or other fees). That is a huge amount of success you would not expect to see in all but a few mods of course. But the potential for success is there and 25% shares is not really stopping that.

 

[Abinash117]

Interesting:

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/cqojx8y

Isn't there only like 17 paid mods?

 

[Suikoguy]

If you don't, then don't make and sell a mod on the market.

Ah good, the take your ball and go home argument, instead of attempting to justify your opinion. Thanks

 

[The Llama]

Isn't there only like 17 paid mods?

And it's been like 2 days, in the face of heavy criticism from most of the community. So of course they haven't generated much revenue yet. But when FO4 and TES6 come out with this support from the start, Bethesda/Valve will be making $$$.

 

[justjim89]

Gopher has posted a video with his thoughts.

Basically it seems like he thinks:

-System is flawed, though not malicious or devious in intent
-People attacking mod authors are being disgusting and childish
-The level of vitriol directed at Valve is absolutely inappropriate.

A fairly level-headed opinion, to be expected.

 

[Atilac]

Ah good, the take your ball and go home argument, instead of attempting to justify your opinion. Thanks

Ah good, refusing to see the adult solution, instead hiding behind your entitlement in a fantasy world where creators can't have the option of making money from their work. Thanks

 

[Grief.exe]

And it's been like 2 days, in the face of heavy criticism from most of the community. So of course they haven't generated much revenue yet. But when FO4 and TES6 come out with this support from the start, Bethesda/Valve will be making $$$.

The modders as well.

Imagine an absolutely essential mod such as SkyUI, both TES6 and Fall Out 4 are likely to go well over 10 million copies in their lifetime sales. These mods will likely only hit a percentage of that, but even if something as impossibly low as 5% of the total demographic purchases a mod, then they are still rolling in cash.

 

[Suikoguy]

Ah good, refusing to see the adult solution, instead hiding behind your entitlement in a fantasy world where creators can't have the option of making money from their work. Thanks

Except, I said nothing of the kind. All I said was the profit sharing scheme is unfair. Not that modders should not be able to profit from their work.

But, go ahead, keep putting words up that I did not say.

The modders as well.

Imagine an absolutely essential mod such as SkyUI, both TES6 and Fall Out 4 are likely to go well over 10 million copies in their lifetime sales. These mods will likely only hit a percentage of that, but even if something as impossibly low as 5% of the total demographic purchases a mod, then they are still rolling in cash.

Amusing to use SkyUI as an example. How nice of Bethseda and Steam to take 75% profit on a mod that fixes something that should not have needed fixing in the first place. How wonderful that now the devs have even less reason to make something right the first time, when they can make more by just ignoring flaws in their game when someone can fix it for them and they still make 75%.

 

[The Llama]

The modders as well.

Imagine an absolutely essential mod such as SkyUI, both TES6 and Fall Out 4 are likely to go well over 10 million copies in their lifetime sales. These mods will likely only hit a percentage of that, but even if something as impossibly low as 5% of the total demographic purchases a mod, then they are still rolling in cash.

It'll definitely be interesting to see if any mods become as essential as things like SkyUI and SKSE are for Skyrim in future games if they aren't free. I can't see it happening tbh but maybe times will change.

 

[Abinash117]

And it's been like 2 days, in the face of heavy criticism from most of the community. So of course they haven't generated much revenue yet. But when FO4 and TES6 come out with this support from the start, Bethesda/Valve will be making $$$.

I was thinking that this probably will spread to other games and maybe some of those games will allow only workshop mods. The number of money will add up over time if more games do it and doing only through steam.


Getting 10k from just 17 mods that cost around 1-5 dollars through a lot of them, including a pay how you want approach seems like a lot from only 2 days. This is a long term investment I'm sure.

 

[Lesath]

And it's been like 2 days, in the face of heavy criticism from most of the community. So of course they haven't generated much revenue yet. But when FO4 and TES6 come out with this support from the start, Bethesda/Valve will be making $$$.

And that's what they should have done, create a system for modding that might be more friendly to cross-mod compatibility from the ground up, for a new game. People are still going to be unhappy, but you're not going to win any favors by implementing an idea you claim are for everyone's benefit in a very flawed way (not mechanisms to insure cross-mod compatibility, accountability through updates, policing use of assets created by other authors) for a game that is on its last legs in terms of generating revenue. Customers aren't to clap you on the back and say "well done". Instead, there's outrage that they're being nicked and dimed, and while I'd say some of their vitriol has been misdirected, I can't blame them.

 

[The Llama]

And that's what they should have done, create a system for modding that might be more friendly to cross-mod compatibility from the ground up, for a new game.

Yeah, I said it earlier, but I think there would have been a LOT less backlash if they had started this with a new game rather than trying to retroactively apply it to the Skyrim modding scene.

 

[Mesoian]

I haven't played Skyrim in years, but I'm kinda tempted to buy it just to support paid mods.

Buying things out of principle is a silly thing to do. Especially with a mod package so lackluster. Spend your money on things that are worth it, not at the first thing presented to you.

 

[Grief.exe]

Amusing to use SkyUI as an example. How nice of Bethseda and Steam to take 75% profit on a mod that fixes something that should not have needed fixing in the first place. How wonderful that now the devs have even less reason to make something right the first time, when they can make more by just ignoring flaws in their game when someone can fix it for them and they still make 75%.

I am struggling to find an objective counter-point to this argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm not conceding this as a good point, I find it completely arbitrary.

In the four years since release and in a four plus year development cycle, Bethesda proved to be incapable of creating a competent UI. Whether that be due to ignorance, laziness, or shear incompetence is anyone's guess

Spoiler

let's be honest, this is Bethesda/Zenimax. It's likely a combination of all three

. Only now is this an issue as Zenimax, Valve, and modders are all taking a piece of the pie in subsequent content development.

It'll definitely be interesting to see if any mods become as essential as things like SkyUI and SKSE are for Skyrim in future games if they aren't free. I can't see it happening tbh but maybe times will change.

I see the inherit value in mods such as SkyUI or Gedosato and be willing to pay for their use.

 

[pahamrick]

This is interesting to see:

 

[The Llama]

I see the inherit value in mods such as SkyUI or Gedosato and be willing to pay for their use.

Oh I agree, there's absolutely value there. But will the modding community in general accept a mod that you have to pay for to be "essential" as they have with SKSE and SkyUI? I honestly don't think so, but we'll see how things shake out with FO4/TES6/etc.

 

[Suikoguy]

I am struggling to find an objective counter-point to this argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm not conceding this as a good point, I find it completely arbitrary.

In the four years since release and in a four plus year development cycle, Bethesda proved to be incapable of creating a competent UI. Whether that be due to ignorance, laziness, or shear incompetence is anyone's guess

Spoiler

let's be honest, this is Bethesda/Zenimax. It's likely a combination of all three

. Only now is this an issue as Zenimax, Valve, and modders are all taking a piece of the pie in subsequent content development.

As long as consoles are the lead development problem, I suspect it will continue to be a problem. On the other hand, the one victory for consumers that this may lead to is mods being available on consoles.

 

[Muscle Wizard]

If you found your work being infringed on and sold on the marketplace, you'd submit a DMCA takedown request, prove you're the copyright holder, and it'd be taken down from the store.

To get money back from the sales of the product you'd presumably have to sue the modder. There is no cut and dry way of addressing that since a court or a private settlement would have to arrange what percentage of the revenue you'd be entitled to based on the value of the infringing content and any potential punitive damages. And Valve would only get into trouble legally if they were found to be negligent in enforcement of copyright as per DMCA regs or whatever on a comprehensive scale, which is unlikely.

But no modder holds the copyright to their work since it is ultimately owned by Bethesda. It's all hearsay

 

[HariKari]

This is interesting to see:

Imagine logging in and finding that your mod no longer updates, and if you want it to, you need to deal with that. They should have saved this for a newer game and gotten in at the ground floor, rather than trying to trounce through an established community.

 

[water_wendi]

I see the inherit value in mods such as SkyUI or Gedosato and be willing to pay for their use.

Why would any company implement fixes or upgrades when they can save costs by not spending manhours addressing the problem, release the game in a sorry state for full price, then rely on their customers to fix the products, then take the lions share of what the customer fix generates?

These last couple days.. lol

 

[Lesath]

As long as consoles are the lead development problem, I suspect it will continue to be a problem. On the other hand, the one victory for consumers that this may lead to is mods being available on consoles.

SkyUI's success was more a fault of the developers not really making the effort to implement a PC-friendly UX (which would have come at considerable expense to Bethesda), and so it fell to the mod author. On one hand, I commend him for the time he took and his contributions to the Skyrim modding scene in general, but on the other, we're wading dangerously into the territory of "this game is worth its price because somebody will fix these problems with mods."

 

[eot]

well this response fits with my previous post

say what you want about Valve but it's cool to get something direct and someone own up and be aware of why people are unhappy

granted, it's a shame this only seems to happen whenever Gabe Newell shows up somewhere

That's not a very concrete answer though. Of course they want a scalable solution, which for them means not having to hire more people as they get more users. That's what they always say. Problem is, there isn't always such a solution and in those cases they still don't hire people to deal with it.

 

[Calabi]

Valve are really pushing into dangerous territory with all this. They are the one stop shop for games on pc, basically a monopoly position for selling games(even software) on PC. Now they are moving into selling mods of games and may well wrap up that market entirely as well.

No matter how good or benevolent Valve are it cannot be good for the PC consumers. Why couldn't Bethesesda set up there own mod sale system? that would have been a better situation than just handing it all over to Valve.

Everything on the PC is sleepwalking towards the walled garden that is Steam. Valve are great for now but they are kind of unpredictable.

 

[Durante]

'Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?'
"No" says the man in Bellevue, "it belongs to the distributor"
"Noo" says the man in Rockville, "it belongs to the IP holder"
"No" says the mob on the Internet, "it belongs to everyone."

 

[King Gilga]

If you don't, then don't make and sell a mod on the market.

That's such a stupid retort.