Support NeoGAF

[Renekton]

Bethesda guaranteed the functionality of their horse armour. They made the armour, they deserve to sell it.

If Bethesda is willing to guarantee the functionally of every single paid mod, I would be happy to give them their 1/3rd cut of the profits.

Doesn't seem logical. By right:

- Modder guarantees the quality of the mod content.

- Bethesda guarantees the base software, IP, userbase (fans of TES) and mod tools.

- Valve guarantees the quality of the underlying distribution platform and infrastructure.

 

[X-arlo]

Oops okay, sorry for my confrontational tone.


Come to think of it, they should have implemented that on Half Life 3 or whatever their next game is.


Then you can remove the termed monetization exclusivity to drug patents and see how it works out (regarding innovation happening without financial incentive).

In the case of corporations monetizing the work of grassroots, what was the actual precedent? Did they try to take everything for themselves?

The following long quotes (sorry...) are from the volume "the moral economy of web 2.0" available for free here: http://henryjenkins.org/2008/03/the_moral_economy_of_web_20_pa.html

"This new talk about “putting the We in the Web” (Levy and Stone 2006) was initially embraced as granting consumers greater influence over the decisions that impacted the production and distribution of culture. By 2007, contradictions, conflicts, and schisms have started to appear within the Web 2.0 paradigm around the imperfectly aligned interests of media producers and consumers.
Consider, for example, FanLib.com, a start-up company that included established media players such as Titanic producer Jon Landau and entertainment lawyer Jon Moonves as advisors, and former Yahoo CMO Anil Singh as Chairman (Jenkins 2007a). FanLib began by hosting officially sponsored fan fiction competitions around The L Word and The Ghost Whisperer. Soon, the company sought to become a general interest portal for all fan fiction, actively soliciting material from leading fan writers, deciding not to solicit prior approval from the studios and production companies. The company’s executives told fans they wanted to promote and protect fan fiction writing and informed initial corporate investors that they would teach fans how to “color within the lines.” When fans stumbled onto the corporate pitch online, there was an intense backlash which spread across blogs, LiveJournals, and various social networking sites.
Fans raised a number of objections. The company wanted to profit from content fans had historically circulated for free (and adding insult, they refused to share the generated revenues with the fan authors). This debate revealed a rift between the “gift economy” of fan culture and the commodity logic of “user-generated content.”

"Consider, for example, Lawrence Lessig’s (2007) critique of an arrangement where LucasFilm would allow fans to “remix” Star Wars content in return for granting the company control over anything participants had generated in response to those materials. Lessig, writing in the Washington Post, described such arrangements as a modern day version of “sharecropping.” Fans were embracing something like this same critique in their response to FanLib, rejecting the idea that the company should be able to profit from their creative labor"

 

[Plasma]

Glad they've removed them (for now) just a shame it's left a fractured community behind, hopefully if they try to attempt something like this again they won't half arse it and actually try to think of a good way to make this work.

 

[Nordicus]

Donation buttons don't work. This has been well established already.

It's a good idea in theory. The problem is people don't donate.

The issue is more that these donation methods are often bit too out of the way of places where money circulates to register. I think putting the feature and positioning it very visibly on Steam page would create immediate and noticeable results. Donating some change off your Steam wallet when you see a big Donate button right next to the download button should have a much smaller mental barrier than donating on Nexus, or would you disagree?

 

[danm999]

Doesn't seem logical. By right:

- Modder guarantees the quality of the mod content.

- Bethesda guarantees the base software, IP, userbase (fans of TES) and mod tools.

- Valve guarantees the quality of the underlying distribution platform and infrastructure.

If they're taking money for the mods (and not just some, the most), they really have to guarantee the functionality of that too though.

Especially when their direct actions (updating the game, updating the platform) can break the mods.

 

[Vallen Valiant]

Doesn't seem logical. By right:

- Modder guarantees the quality of the mod content.

- Bethesda guarantees the base software, IP, userbase (fans of TES) and mod tools.

- Valve guarantees the quality of the underlying distribution platform and infrastructure.

As the IP holder, Bethesda can and do have the power to determine how their IP should be used. The only way for Bethesda to have no control over the quality of a paid, licensed mod, is if Bethesda decided to not care about it.

You are talking about what is legal. I am talking about what makes a good 3rd party DLC that would make good money for everyone. Very different things. Your way is legal, but it wouldn't WORK.

 

[Dinda]

The way they did it was wrong, but if this totally overblown outcry will result in future games like Fallout 4 not supporting mods i will be extremely pissed.

Don't celebrate your victory before you know the consequences guys.

 

[Renekton]

Consider, for example, FanLib.com, a start-up company that included established media players such as Titanic producer Jon Landau and entertainment lawyer Jon Moonves as advisors, and former Yahoo CMO Anil Singh as Chairman (Jenkins 2007a). FanLib began by hosting officially sponsored fan fiction competitions around The L Word and The Ghost Whisperer. Soon, the company sought to become a general interest portal for all fan fiction, actively soliciting material from leading fan writers, deciding not to solicit prior approval from the studios and production companies. The company’s executives told fans they wanted to promote and protect fan fiction writing and informed initial corporate investors that they would teach fans how to “color within the lines.” When fans stumbled onto the corporate pitch online, there was an intense backlash which spread across blogs, LiveJournals, and various social networking sites.

Fans raised a number of objections. The company wanted to profit from content fans had historically circulated for free (and adding insult, they refused to share the generated revenues with the fan authors). This debate revealed a rift between the “gift economy” of fan culture and the commodity logic of “user-generated content.”

Not sure how it applied to paid modding.

- The writers do not want corporate influence into their creative process.

- The corporations wanted all the profits to themselves.

- Fanfic writers are not dependent on the underlying technology platform, modding tools and base software of original developers and distributor

- (to avoid missing the point) There is no precedent that fanfic writers getting reliably paid for their efforts won't create better fan fiction.

If they're taking money for the mods (and not just some, the most), they really have to guarantee the functionality of that too though.

Especially when their direct actions (updating the game, updating the platform) can break the mods.

Yes they have some responsibility in that the base software (ie Vanilla Skyrim) and Creation kit are not the culprit in the mod not working.

They arguably won't guarantee the mod quality outside of that, for example if the horse made by the modder is fugly.

 

[water_wendi]

The way they did it was wrong, but if this totally overblown outcry will result in future games like Fallout 4 not supporting mods i will be extremely pissed.

Don't celebrate your victory before you know the consequences guys.

i dont think Bethesda would be dumb enough to remove mods from their games. i can dream though.

 

[X-arlo]

Not sure how it applied to paid modding.

- The writers do not want corporate influence into their creative process.

This is a tension inherent to all forms of creative process.

- The corporations wanted all the profits to themselves.

This is a tendency inherent to capitalist logic

- Fanfic writers are not dependent on the underlying technology platform, modding tools and base software of original developers and distributor

Fanfic writers, by definition, are dependent on established creative outputs, that is, existing characters, plotlines and fictional universes. These things are the creative platforms upon which fans develop their own creations. The view that a "creative platform" can only be technological is very limited.

edit: sorry for the messed-up quoting

 

[SneakyStephan]

The way they did it was wrong, but if this totally overblown outcry will result in future games like Fallout 4 not supporting mods i will be extremely pissed.

Don't celebrate your victory before you know the consequences guys.

The outcry is not overblown
We are not at the mercy of bethesda, bethesda is at the mercy of consumers
As a consumer you should never put up with shit in the name of being held hostage by a publisher.
If they kill mod support for fallout 4 then it will hurt their bottom line a lot. Their loss, not ours.

Judging by the wording in your post I'm guessing you'll be extremely pissed at fellow consumers/gamers instead of directing your anger where it would belong (at bethesda)

 

[Vallen Valiant]

Yes they have some responsibility in that the base software (ie Vanilla Skyrim) and Creation kit are not the culprit in the mod not working.

They arguably won't guarantee the mod quality outside of that, for example if the horse made by the modder is fugly.

They can guarantee anything they want, it is their right as the IP holder. And YET, if they want third party DLC to succeed, they would need to offer more guarantee than what you are suggesting. It is not good enough for Bethesda to just wait for the money to roll in, if they are serious about this they need to participate.

 

[Renekton]

Fanfic writers, by definition, are dependent on established creative outputs, that is, existing characters, plotlines and fictional universes. These things are the creative platforms upon which fans develop their own creations. The view that a "creative platform" can only be technological is very limited.

They can still diverge from standard canon and are relatively unaffected from any status quo changes of existing characters. Whereas if Skyrim has a new version, fans will spam popular modders to update their product.

They can guarantee anything they want, it is their right as the IP holder. And YET, if they want third party DLC to succeed, they would need to offer more guarantee than what you are suggesting. It is not good enough for Bethesda to just wait for the money to roll in, if they are serious about this they need to participate.

I can agree with that.

Although it may be better to let the market itself punish them for their negligence. If Bethesda is shoddy in TESVI mod support or providing value-add to modders, modders (and subsequently consumers) may opt to mod for a different developer.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Now don't ever let someone tell you that complaining/voicing your discontent on the internet doesn't work.

Holy shit, no way did I ever think Valve and Beth would listen. Glad though, very glad.

 

[Dinda]

The outcry is not overblown
We are not at the mercy of bethesda, bethesda is at the mercy of consumers
As a consumer you should never put up with shit in the name of being held hostage by a publisher.
If they kill mod support for fallout 4 then it will hurt their bottom line a lot. Their loss, not ours.

Judging by the wording in your post I'm guessing you'll be extremely pissed at fellow consumers/gamers instead of directing your anger where it would belong (at bethesda)

Maybe i'm missing something, but i didn't see anything blocking the use of free mods as they where before other than decisions of modders themselves to only offer them payed. I'm also not only talking about the reaction to bethesda and valve, but also the hatred etc mod makers received.

I already said that they did it the wrong way, it should for starters have a slider that could be as low as 0 if the mod maker wanted it, this small change would make a world of difference.

 

[X-arlo]

They can still diverge from standard canon and are relatively unaffected from any status quo changes of existing characters. Whereas if Skyrim has a new version, fans will spam popular modders to update their product.


I can agree with that.

Although it may be better to let the market itself punish them for their negligence. If Bethesda is shoddy in TESVI mod support or providing value-add to modders, modders (and subsequently consumers) may opt to mod for a different developer.

Fans aren't affected by status quo changes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_off

When Stephen King wrote Misery he was onto something you know... he didn't conjure it up out of thin air.

 

[Bl@de]

Unexpected. Thought they will just weather the storm but instead they admitted it as a mistake. Back to the drawing board Valve/Bethesda. Paid mods are not a bad thing, but it needs better execution (and please make a better sorted workshop. just look at the nexus and copy it, if you have no new ideas).

 

[Renekton]

Fans aren't affected by status quo changes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_off

When Stephen King wrote Misery he was onto something you know... he didn't conjure it up out of thin air.

Basically my fanfic of Han and Chewbacca having a steamy relationship won't be drastically affected by Han's death in main canon as much as mods flat-out breaking from new patch version of main game.

You can still read the fan fiction just fine. But the mod in Skyrim won't work at all.

 

[martino]

and why not a free split amount (between steam,dev,moder) you define to get the mod like humble bundle.

 

[WanderingWind]

They don't vote with their wallets most of the time. BF4 still sold. D3 still sold. Sims still sold.

But also often complain about things without perspective. Like the price of games; when they are as cheap as they have ever been. I bought DQ2 for $70 in 1987. That's $130 in modern currency. A NES deluxe was $299; around $607 in 2015 funds. Systems and games are as cheap as they have ever been but people are still outraged.

XB1 DRM had legitimate concerns as did D3 AH, simcity, BF4 etc... but on this one the community is over outraged about something that isn't as serious.

They did vote with their wallets. Companies don't change behavior because they're being nice. They change because it's affecting their end goal - to make money. That's not even a bad thing, as some would suggest, but it's why they exist.

And talking about the price of systems as they used to be is wholly irrelevant. In this context, perspective is useless. It doesn't matter that things used to be a certain way, if consumers are unhappy with how they are in the here and now, they have the right to voice their opinion. People are telling companies that perhaps they don't need pack-in items like cameras, voice activation, etc. They're telling companies they want a cheaper system. Yes, some are being unreasonable and wanting the sky for the price of a pound of dirt, but focusing on the outliers in any discussion is counterproductive.

Consumers spoke here and let their concerns be known. The companies responsible agreed and shelved the idea until they could address those. But this is somehow proof to you that the "outrage" wasn't as serious? As a PC gamer, this was drastically more concerning for me than say, the auction house deal.

Now, if they revisit the idea after A) pushing donations to the same level they did with pay-for-mods, with front and center donation link, B) some reasonable testing of mods to ensure a somewhat unified working product, C) adequate customer service prepared to deal with the differences between professionally produced DLC and fan-made mods, D) some sort of guarantee that they won't use the paid mods as a way to squeeze out free mods from they disapprove of, or that "infringe" on a paid for mod E) some reasonable amount of verification that paid for mods aren't the work of somebody else - then maybe you'd see a more tempered reaction from the PC gaming base.

There was none of that here. It was poorly thought out. They even say almost exactly that.

 

[CyclopsRock]

inb4 the only way you can mod your game at all is via paid mods.

I can undestand why people don't want to pay for things. That doesn't mean they should be righteous whilst demanding it.

 

[Vallen Valiant]

Now, if they revisit the idea after A) pushing donations to the same level they did with pay-for-mods, with front and center donation link, B) some reasonable testing of mods to ensure a somewhat unified working product, C) adequate customer service prepared to deal with the differences between professionally produced DLC and fan-made mods, D) some sort of guarantee that they won't use the paid mods as a way to squeeze out free mods from they disapprove of, or that "infringe" on a paid for mod E) some reasonable amount of verification that paid for mods aren't the work of somebody else - then maybe you'd see a more tempered reaction from the PC gaming base.

There was none of that here. It was poorly thought out. They even say almost exactly that.

If Bethesda and Valve offered something similar to what you brought up, I would certainly support it with my money. It won't be easy to do on their part, but that's what happens when you want to earn money.

 

[Tworak]

I wouldn't mind at all if they tried a donation system like Ubuntu uses. Kind of like a, 'maybe I should pay to make the mod better.' also possibility to skip the donation if you don't want to or is just a cheap little shit.

Ubuntu example; http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/contribute/?version=14.04.2&architecture=amd64

 

[Sendou]

Lol at people bringing up the donation thing again. It's okay not to want to paid mods for whatever reason but thinking that allowing donations does the same is simply not true. Firstly it's already possible. Secondly the magic number of people donating for example to Durante for his DSFix is only less than 0.17% of all mod users. How do you think anyone can go "pro" like Valve intended with figures like this?

 

[Aselith]

I wouldn't mind at all if they tried a donation system like Ubuntu uses. Kind of like a, 'maybe I should pay to make the mod better.' also possibility to skip the donation if you don't want to or is just a cheap little shit.

Ubuntu example; http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/contribute/?version=14.04.2&architecture=amd64

Donation options were available for a lot of these and donation percentage are very low. A number was thrown out that apparently Durante had given at some point and it 0.17%

 

[forms]

Now this is fucking impressive.

 

[Tworak]

Donation options were available for a lot of these and donation percentage are very low. A number was thrown out that apparently Durante had given at some point and it 0.17%

but are they very visible in steam?

I'd say the number would rise from 0.17% if the donation was more visible. I've never seen a link to a donation in the steam workshop. then again, I've never looked since I've only recently started using it (cities skylines)

 

[Nordicus]

Lol at people bringing up the donation thing again. It's okay not to want to paid mods for whatever reason but thinking that allowing donations does the same is simply not true. Firstly it's already possible. Secondly the magic number of people donating for example to Durante for his DSFix is only less than 0.17% of all mod users. How do you think anyone can go "pro" like Valve intended with figures like this?

Donation options were available for a lot of these and donation percentage are very low. A number was thrown out that apparently Durante had given at some point and it 0.17%

So you are saying that mods are an exception of all other kinds of business/moneygathering where time, place and presentation makes a huge difference, and would rather we skip a potential phase of Steam Workshop itself pushing donations on its pages?

 

[Ishan]

All ppl have achieved thru this outcry is ensuring the next fallout/skyrim game will come with reliable cosmetic/modding options . God the PC community and their holier than thou attitude needs to die it's like the whole Linux/ everything needs to be be freeware attitude aka unsustainable . I'm a software person I'm not doing to do shit for you for free . Get over it . World isn't flowers and unicorns . 25 % revenue no risk was an amazing deal .

 

[Kingpin Rogers]

It sounds like it could have been a good thing guys, at least their explanation makes it sound like that. Pretty disappointed right now and I hope they tweak it/bring it back in the future.

 

[WanderingWind]

Donation options were available for a lot of these and donation percentage are very low. A number was thrown out that apparently Durante had given at some point and it 0.17%

They were an option for some of them. Not most. And you know what else wasn't massively successful until Valve started to take it seriously with Steam? Most everything else about PC gaming. Once upon a time, people would have laughed at the idea of somebody playing games over the internet and having strangers throw money at them for the privilege of watching.

It's only telling a fraction of the story when people say "donations haven't worked." They haven't really been tried yet. Not really. I went back through some of the mods I had installed, very few of them had donation links at all, and only 1 had it prominently displayed. Largely because there was no real expectation for financial compensation until now. You can't say something hasn't worked before it has really been tried in earnest.

If Steams suddenly pops up with say a donation button here:

for all mods, across all games, then we can start to see if it works or not. But, that mod right there, does that guy accept donations? I dunno. I could go to his personal page and find out. But it's not information that is easily accessible.

 

[not psycho]

Then don't pay for it? If someone is porpoising a bad deal to you - and I suspect the majority of these are - Then the correct course of action is to decline that offer, not demand they cease to be allowed to offer it

If someone is proposing an anti-consumer system (and a system which sells uncurated mods that can be forced broken, with no recourse or refund opportunity, is very anti-consumer) with no effective explanation of vital functions (such as judging and enforcing copyright disputes, or the response to companies who want to allow Steam mods only), then it is absolutely valid to voice your concerns in the hopes of getting the system changed.

I believe you are thinking of making it illegal? I'm not totally sure how some of Steam's practices would stand up to Consumer Protection laws if the issue was forced. But, you are in the wrong ballpark on this issue. People were voicing their concerns and asking for changes, as is clearly appropriate, not suing.

Donation options were available for a lot of these and donation percentage are very low. A number was thrown out that apparently Durante had given at some point and it 0.17%

At least some of the reason for low donations would be Steam's own mod-hostile system. I am less likely to donate when the mod can break at any moment. Valve can help modders make money by simply making Steam mod-friendly, thus increasing the value of mods across the board.

 

[Ishan]

They were an option for some of them. Not most. And you know what else wasn't massively successful until Valve started to take it seriously with Steam? Most everything else about PC gaming. Once upon a time, people would have laughed at the idea of somebody playing games over the internet and having strangers throw money at them for the privilege of watching.

It's only telling a fraction of the story when people say "donations haven't worked." They haven't really been tried yet. Not really. I went back through some of the mods I had installed, very few of them had donation links at all, and only 1 had it prominently displayed. Largely because there was no real expectation for financial compensation until now. You can't say something hasn't worked before it has really been tried in earnest.

If Steams suddenly pops up with say a donation button here:

for all mods, across all games, then we can start to see if it works or not. But, that mod right there, does that guy accept donations? I dunno. I could go to his personal page and find out. But it's not information that is easily accessible.

Did you read the article ? The guy made way more within going paid that for a week or something than he did over years of voluntary donations . ... The donation framework does not work . Period . That's what is a fact .

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Gotta hand it to them. They owned up to their mistake in a timely manner and with the community's involvement.

Yeah, this is a pretty solid statement. No matter their intentions (and given the mod creators only earn 25% I'm sure this idea primarily stemmed from the prospect of more money), they've reacted to the feedback and reneged on it immediately. Can't fault them for that.

 

[WanderingWind]

Did you read the article ? The guy made way more within going paid that for a week or something than he did over years of voluntary donations . ... The donation framework does not work . Period . That's what is a fact .

No, I didn't read the article. I didn't read anything. I can't read. Just like I didn't address that directly in the three paragraphs above.

 

[Tworak]

Did you read the article ? The guy made way more within going paid that for a week or something than he did over years of voluntary donations . ... The donation framework does not work . Period . That's what is a fact .

did you read the post you're quoting? because I don't think you did. it is incredibly clear that you didn't read the post you're quoting.

read it.

 

[Ishan]

Yeah, this is a pretty solid statement. No matter their intentions (and given the mod creators only earn 25% I'm sure this idea primarily stemmed from the prospect of more money), they've reacted to the feedback and reneged on it immediately. Can't fault them for that.

Modders Shouldn't earn more than 35 in any case devs should get their due . Making something "moddable" isn't easy . It's almost like I coded in c then gave you everything in an HTML platter to enjoy having fun and you made a cool thing yes but if you're making money of it then be respectful of where it came from . And I'm going to say a significant portion of gaf isn't aware of this .

 

[CadetMahoney]

"We've done this because it's clear we didn't understand exactly what we were doing."

It's rare a company would say this lolz.

 

[Sendou]

No, I didn't read the article. I didn't read anything. I can't read. Just like I didn't address that directly in the three paragraphs above.

It doesn't even matter if we would agree that allowing donations integrated to the Workshop interface like that would tenfold the modders' revenue (which it won't) or it didn't come it with its own problems because the fact stands that allowing paid mods brings in more revenue thus allowing more modders to make a living out of modding. Like Gabe said "Working at Waffle House does not help you make a better game.". So in that light why wouldn't we allow modders make the choice between selling their creations or asking for donations? Only one of them is currently possible and it only got us so far.

 

[Renekton]

So you are saying that mods are an exception of all other kinds of business/moneygathering where time, place and presentation makes a huge difference, and would rather we skip a potential phase of Steam Workshop itself pushing donations on its pages?

If it is indeed an issue of visibility, how much more pushy in-your-face do you need the donation button to be to improve on 0.17%?

I can see this very clearly without looking for it:

SkyUI Donate button is very visible and accessible:

 

[hesido]

The only mistake they made was thinking that pc gamers could be civil about this

Just because some low-life fools made death threats doesn't invalidate the valid concerns of gamers for Valve's not-well-established move. (Those fools should be ashamed.. As if they have any empathy or rational thinking.)

 

[CyclopsRock]

If someone is proposing an anti-consumer system (and a system which sells uncurated mods that can be forced broken, with no recourse or refund opportunity, is very anti-consumer) with no effective explanation of vital functions (such as judging and enforcing copyright disputes, or the response to companies who want to allow Steam mods only), then it is absolutely valid to voice your concerns in the hopes of getting the system changed.

I believe you are thinking of making it illegal? I'm not totally sure how some of Steam's practices would stand up to Consumer Protection laws if the issue was forced. But, you are in the wrong ballpark on this issue. People were voicing their concerns and asking for changes, as is clearly appropriate, not suing.

Nope, I think you misunderstood/I was unclear. I meant that if you think what's being offered isn't a good deal, you should simply opt not to buy it. That's the crux of it, to me. That's voting with your wallet. Not playing ball by opting to only use the free mods, that's voting with ones wallet. Shitting up mod comments (including on mods which were free anyway!), down voting game ratings, that's just de facto vandalism.

Personally, I'd never pay for a mod for all the reasons that you've stated. (This isn't the only place where it's an issue, incidentally - ask anyone who's bought a plugin for some software that has its development halted, meaning you have to choose between jetisoning the plugin or using older versions of the host software). It seems silly. But I also think that mod makers should be allowed to charge if that's what they want to do - and the fact so many opted to charge as soon as it was practically possible to do so suggests that many do - and if this results in no one playing their mod, well, that's up to them. And to me, that's the crux. If mod makers want to keep these mods free, they can. People have no right to free mods, nor do they have a right to the products of other peoples' labour. If you don't think something's a good deal, or it seems too risky, your only right is the right to decline that offer. I'm sad that Valve have capitulated for this reason; it seems like a victory for mob mentality over what's actually right, to me.

(I say this as someone who spent literally years and years of his youth developing free mods for games like BF1942 and Source. In fact, it's what got me into 3D art and I now work in visual effects as a result. It never even occured to me/the team I worked with to try and monetise our mod - though if the possibility to do so had existed at the time, I've no idea if we would have. Probably not, we mostly just did it for fun. But I also respect the time we put into it, and if someone wants to charge for that, I think they should be able to. If you don't want it? You don't trust that they'll keep it updated, or fix bugs? Don't buy it.)

 

[WanderingWind]

It doesn't even matter if we would agree that allowing donations integrated to the Workshop interface like that would tenfold the modders' revenue (which it won't) or it didn't come it with its own problems because the fact stands that allowing paid mods brings in more revenue thus allowing more modders to make a living out of modding. Like Gabe said "Working at Waffle House does not help you make a better game.". So in that light why wouldn't we allow modders make the choice between selling their creations or asking for donations? Only one of them is currently possible and it only got us so far.

You don't know any of that and saying it's a fact is simply using that word wrong. It may be a fact, but we have no way of knowing. And "only got us so far?" Are you suggesting that there is some lack of mods available for games that support it? Because that's the opposite of true. The lack of a paid for mods could very well have stunted the growth of the modding community, but we will never know that either. What we can unequvocially say is that free mods exist in an overabundance for games that support it, like Oblivion and Skyrim. Hell, even games that don't clamp down on mods, but don't officially support them have a robust modding community.

So, the more accurate question would be, "Why not try out the solution that nobody reasonable has any real objection to and try that first?" Is anybody against modders soliciting donations? I haven't met one yet, but I'm sure they exist. Is anybody against mods, in their current state, being charged for like DLC? Clearly, the answer there is yes.

So, why not try in earnest to create a solution that could potentially work for everybody? If that proves to be ineffective for the modders, then they can do what consumers just did, and voice their opinion. But saying "I had a donation link on my personal blog so donations don't work" isn't the same thing as saying "Steam had a front-facing donation system and it didn't work."

Much in the same way that you not moving much lemonade from your sidewalk isn't proof that Wal-Mart can't possibly move lemonade. Why do you think big stores are infested at all times with people seeking donations for Cause X? Volume and ability to be seen is imperative.

And once again, until a few days ago, there wasn't even any discussion about modders getting paid for their work, through donations or otherwise. You can't be mad at something retroactively not working.

 

[GrandHarrier]

Paid mods need guarantees that the mods will work in the long term and ways for people to test them out that didn't involve buying it and hoping it worked to your satisfaction. As it stood the system offered did neither of these so it's good it was killed, imo.

 

[Sendou]

You don't know any of that and saying it's a fact is simply using that word wrong. It may be a fact, but we have no way of knowing. And "only got us so far?" Are you suggesting that there is some lack of mods available for games that support it? Because that's the opposite of true. The lack of a paid for mods could very well have stunted the growth of the modding community, but we will never know that either. What we can unequvocially say is that free mods exist in an overabundance for games that support it, like Oblivion and Skyrim. Hell, even games that don't clamp down on mods, but don't officially support them have a robust modding community.

So, the more accurate question would be, "Why not try out the solution that nobody reasonable has any real objection to and try that first?" Is anybody against modders soliciting donations? I haven't met one yet, but I'm sure they exist. Is anybody against mods, in their current state, being charged for like DLC? Clearly, the answer there is yes.

So, why not try in earnest to create a solution that could potentially work for everybody? If that proves to be ineffective for the modders, then they can do what consumers just did, and voice their opinion. But saying "I had a donation link on my personal blog so donations don't work" isn't the same thing as saying "Steam had a front-facing donation system and it didn't work."

Much in the same way that you not moving much lemonade from your sidewalk isn't proof that Wal-Mart can't possibly move lemonade. Why do you think big stores are infested at all times with people seeking donations for Cause X? Volume and ability to be seen is imperative.

And once again, until a few days ago, there wasn't even any discussion about modders getting paid for their work, through donations or otherwise. You can't be mad at something retroactively not working.

But you can already put donation link to Workshop page so that it's impossible to miss. So asking for them to allow donations is nothing that isn't possible currently. I can understand the appeal of making it more standardized like you're suggesting but that brings its own problems. Who would be gathering donations in that example? Can Valve call them donations if someone will be taking a cut anyway? In any case I find it eyebrow-raising that you can't agree on paid mods bringing in more revenue than donations as you suggested.

Will be fun to see year from now or so when Valve brings this back with L4D3. I wonder what the excuses will be like that time.

 

[Renekton]

So, the more accurate question would be, "Why not try out the solution that nobody reasonable has any real objection to and try that first?" Is anybody against modders soliciting donations? I haven't met one yet, but I'm sure they exist. Is anybody against mods, in their current state, being charged for like DLC? Clearly, the answer there is yes.

Is it the right approach to use lowest number of protestors to decide on new disruptive ideas?

But saying "I had a donation link on my personal blog so donations don't work" isn't the same thing as saying "Steam had a front-facing donation system and it didn't work."

The visibility is not far off from, for example, the SkyUI page at Nexus portal.

At this rate, we already have gedosato and skyui to draw conjectures from, what do you have other than "you haven't tried!"?

 

[Blue Ninja]

Good. The idea is a good one in theory, but allowing just anyone to put up mods and charge for them was an idiot move.

Get a new system in place. Modders can submit mods, but they need to be a certain size and a team of community modders needs to perform QA and render judgment before they're allowed to be put up for sale.

 

[WanderingWind]

Is it the right approach to use lowest number of protestors to decide on new disruptive ideas?


The visibility is not far off from, for example, the SkyUI page at Nexus portal.

At this rate, we already have gedosato and skyui to draw conjectures from, what do you have other than "you haven't tried!"?

I have addressed literally all of this.

 

[Renekton]

I have addressed literally all of this.

Not in your latest previous post.

 

[WanderingWind]

Not in your latest previous post.

Yup. I ignored you in the last thread because you decide that playing dumb was a good discussion tactic, and I see you're trying it out again. You can either stop and we can keep talking, or you can continue I'll just go about my day.