Support NeoGAF

[johntown]

I totally welcome paid mods when, the next TES and Fallout happen. So many people who pour hundreds of hours to make something they love better and make money from it.

Going against this is akin to being greedy and entitled to everything like a large part of the internet is in regards to pirating movies and games and music.

I would tend to think the reverse that the people who want this are greedy and entitled.

The modding community for Bethesda games has been free and open for years. Take your self righteous BS about comparing people who want free mods to pirates somewhere else.

 

[TarNaru33]

The modding community for Bethesda games has been free and open for years. Take your self righteous BS about comparing people who want free mods to pirates somewhere else.

So because that was normally so, nothing should change? Come on, you should realize how flawed of a logic that is.

 

[unknownhero]

So because that was normally so, nothing should change? Come on, you should realize how flawed of a logic that is.

if it's not broke, don't fix it

besides, this is the type of thing publishers would abuse. the world is not ready for this now.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

if it's not broke, don't fix it

besides, this is the type of thing publishers would abuse. the world is not ready for this now.

Yep.
This is a discussion that should have happened years ago, instead of being dropped in everyone's lap because Valve/Bethesda figured that they could turn a profit

 

[Hero Prinny]

So because that was normally so, nothing should change? Come on, you should realize how flawed of a logic that is.

Its not flawed, theres nothing wrong with the way it works now.

 

[Corronchilejano]

if it's not broke, don't fix it

Something, something, digital distribution and Steam.

I would tend to think the reverse that the people who want this are greedy and entitled.

Mods that hadn't been active for years and filled with bugs suddenly having their developers back due to the possibility of actually funding their development is being greedy? That's just one case. I agree that a guy who edits a couple of config files and sells an item he made in 20 minutes for 5 bucks may just be greedy, but other more elaborate mods do not fall into that category.

The majority of the community has spoken and said they don't want paid mods. There is small groups that actually support paid mods for some reason.

There are modders that have come out against paid mods too, you know. Big time modders. It's not a black-and-white, mod-makers-vs.-mod-users issue, like many people in this thread seem to believe.

There are legimitate concerns for a program that needs reworking, but the crux here is giving choice.

I am not against some modders charging for their work. If someone wants to make money from a mod their is no reason they cannot create a simple website and put it behind a paywall.

Anyone can do that now, but go ask the guys from Paranautical Activity how much not being on Steam cost them.

I pay enough for DLC and I don't want to have to start paying more for mods. Am I cheap (you damn right).

You're not the only one with that stance, and I think some modders feel betrayed because of this widespread sentiment. I think it's good that this is happening because where at least talking about the subject now.

Spoiler

Also it's "persecution"

Spoiler

English isn't my first language.

 

[TarNaru33]

if it's not broke, don't fix it

besides, this is the type of thing publishers would abuse. the world is not ready for this now.

Its not flawed, theres nothing wrong with the way it works now.

You both should note, that wasn't what he was saying. Also, it is flawed, barring modders from making money off their work completely is flawed. So long as the original creator do not mind it, why can someone not make money off of the work they add? Donations is nice and all, but why actually bar them from having people pay before they can get the mod?

Also please those, don't try using "they will make money off of unfinished/buggy work", many developers already do this and there are ways to prevent this.

 

[Majukun]

I totally welcome paid mods when, the next TES and Fallout happen. So many people who pour hundreds of hours to make something they love better and make money from it.

Going against this is akin to being greedy and entitled to everything like a large part of the internet is in regards to pirating movies and games and music.

again,the problem was not that some modders wanted money for their work

EVERYONE is entitled to ask for money for their work if they so desire,and then the market will decide if such work is worth what they ask for.

the problem is how valve and bethesda approached the whole thing..basically putting a price tag on some mods and calling it a day..without realizing that a lot more things need to be done when passing from a good will drived,free mod community made by passionate hobbist...and something you are asking people to pay for
both in terms of rights of the modders (people stealing mods,the legal controversy of mods made using material from other mods,etc..),and rights of the consumer (warranty that the mod will work as advised both at the moment of purchase and for the foreseeable future,despite whatever other mod the user may have already installed or whatever patch the developer might apply in the future on the game..especially sicne steam loves to auto update.
also,the percentage of revenue given to the modders was a joke

when a system will be built where i can install any mod and have it working properly,without fearing that the next update (or the next mod i install) might broke them at any moment without warning,then,and only then..we will be able to sit this down and talk about paying for mods..but before that,it would just be the nth example of us customers giving up on some of our rights just that the big publishers can put more oney on their pockets..much like what happened with dlc..we let them pass and now every freaking game has day one dlc..and now microtransactions too are making the same thing

we should really stop helping "them" and for once think about our benefit..because they sure don't ,valve included.

 

[Guri]

I think people should read this article from Steamed Kotaku. I don't agree with some of the most extreme measures, but it should give you more details about why donations do not work very well.

 

[Vallen Valiant]

I think people should read this article from Steamed Kotaku. I don't agree with some of the most extreme measures, but it should give you more details about why donations do not work very well.

No, all it says is that donations are not very profitable. If being profitable is what you are after, then you won't use donations. That's just the way it is. That is confusing the issue with WHY donation is used; it is the only way to give money in a commune system. When you share everything freely, donation is the only transaction. It isn't done because it is the most efficient, it is done because it is socially acceptable in the system it is under. Any other means to obtain money will destroy the commune.

Donations work VERY well. Unless, that is, you just want to extract maximum profit for the least amount of work.

 

[HoodWinked]

you know whats insane, valve and bethesda are probably up there among companies that have built up the most amount of good will among gamers and yet they couldnt get this to work.

its crazy how these companies continue to underestimate the power of loss aversion

 

[PedroLumpy]

I think people should read this article from Steamed Kotaku. I don't agree with some of the most extreme measures, but it should give you more details about why donations do not work very well.

Just read that myself.

I'll be very interested to see what modders do from here. Now that things have quieted down a bit, maybe we'll hear what they wanted.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

This is just factually wrong on every level.

Garry Newman would like a word with you.

Team Fortress was once just a mod. It became a full (and much, much better) game when it became a paid product.

Same goes for Counterstrike.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, though. Do you think the original incarnations of Team Fortress and Counterstrike would have taken off at all if they were introduced as paid mods? I think not. We would never have made it to the commercial product versions if the creators had originally tried to charge for their hobbyist work.

The sky didn't fall on Garry Newman when his little mod became a commercial product. In fact, quite the opposite - it allowed him to start a company and hire more talent.

Nothing wrong with taking a mod concept and spinning it off into a full game. We see plenty of successful examples of that. Garry's Mod, Counterstrike, Team Fortress, DayZ, Red Orchestra, The Stanley Parable, etc. etc. the list goes on. I think it's great. If you want to sell something and make money, make it into a standalone product that doesn't rely on someone else's IP.

 

[_machine]

No, all it says is that donations are not very profitable. If being profitable is what you are after, then you won't use donations. That's just the way it is. That is confusing the issue with WHY donation is used; it is the only way to give money in a commune system. When you share everything freely, donation is the only transaction. It isn't done because it is the most efficient, it is done because it is socially acceptable in the system it is under. Any other means to obtain money will destroy the commune.

Donations work VERY well. Unless, that is, you just want to extract maximum profit for the least amount of work.

If you want to depend on making mods professionaly, no, not even close:

And Anton Tierno, the aforementioned Sebastian who successfully sold mods under the Steam Workshop, had this very bare-bones approach to the situation: “How else to support modders and motivate developers to create new plugins? The donation system is not very good. There are modes which are made over the years, and their creators spend their money to create it. And I think that they deserve to be paid. Some of these modders have written to me, whose mods was popular among them were hundreds of thousands of downloads and only [a handful] supported the project with money -- these modders no longer [would attempt] something large-scale now.”

I'm also very tired of hearing this "it will destroy the commune" because while it certainly can (and most likely will) have some negative effects as well, it hasn't happened for any game with paid mods. UT community, DOTA2, CS:GO, Assetto Corsa, Flight Sim have active, thriving and helpful communities surrounding modding, yet all of these communities also have professional modders who do absolutely stunning quality stuff. The userbase does mean a lot and I can't say that at least the current userbase of Skyrim is the best one for paid mods, but at the same saying "it will destroy the community" as an absolute is quite ridiculous if we look for elsewhere as a reference.

Hell, even in games development the community is open, people are willing to help you and even the bigger developer are willing to share their mistakes and victories. If you are wondering why the Finnish game industry has produced extremely succesfull developers like Supercell, you would find one of the answers from the collaborative nature of our industry.

I won't say that the whole concept is wholly positive thing even excluding Workshop and Steam, because it isn't, but at the same time it has plenty of positive aspects.

Nothing wrong with taking a mod concept and spinning it off into a full game. We see plenty of successful examples of that. Garry's Mod, Counterstrike, Team Fortress, DayZ, Red Orchestra, The Stanley Parable, etc. etc. the list goes on. I think it's great. If you want to sell something and make money, make it into a standalone product that doesn't rely on someone else's IP.

We also have plenty of great examples from simulation genre that paid mods can be an extremely good thing for all involved. Aperture Tag's reception hasn't been too shabby either and most weren't up in arms when it was released.

 

[Vallen Valiant]

If you want to depend on making mods professionaly, no, not even close:

Once again, you are talking about "how to extract maximum profits".

This simply isn't how a communist system work. And I outright make the claim that the TES Mod system is Communist. Everyone share because everyone takes. You can talk about profitability elsewhere, but that isn't what mods is about. Nexus is NOT a storefront, it isn't where you go to get money. It is a social exchange. This is why you have mods that were built on top of multiple other mods.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

We also have plenty of great examples from simulation genre that paid mods can be an extremely good thing for all involved. Aperture Tag's reception hasn't been too shabby either and most weren't up in arms when it was released.

Introduce it as a paid product from the get go and no one can complain. They can just choose to not buy it. The biggest problem with what they did here was attempting a dramatic shift on an entrenched community that has had years of activity.

 

[PedroLumpy]

This is exactly what I'm talking about, though. Do you think the original incarnations of Team Fortress and Counterstrike would have taken off at all if they were introduced as paid mods? I think not. We would never have made it to the commercial product versions if the creators had originally tried to charge for their hobbyist work.

Well you'd have to be pretty crazy to charge for multiplayer Mod right off the bat as you need the population. But that logic doesn't apply to all the other types of Mods

 

[_machine]

Once again, you are talking about "how to extract maximum profits".

This simply isn't how a communist system work. And I outright make the claim that the TES Mod system is Communist. Everyone share because everyone takes. You can talk about profitability elsewhere, but that isn't what mods is about. Nexus is NOT a storefront, it isn't where you go to get money. It is a social exchange. This is why you have mods that were built on top of multiple other mods.

First of all, I take serious offense for the "you just want to extract maximum profit for the least amount of work". You obviously have no idea how much work modding can be and how even at a set price it most likely will not be very profitable. As an example, the mod I'm planning with one of our artist would most likely amount to 1-2K manhours at least (so given how development usually goes you can pretty much double that), yet we are ready to accept that it might never even pay the costs of the software. Charging for something doesn't mean your going for "maximum profit", that would imply that you were doing everything to make it as succesfull as it can be and cater it to "an audience" rather than just doing something you want to and hoping others feel it's valuable enough to buy.

 

[Oemenia]

Late to the debate here, but I want to know, just what do the modders themselves think?

 

[PedroLumpy]

Late to the debate here, but I want to know, just what do the modders themselves think?

Durante (of DSFix fame) has posted. I'm on a phone, so looking up the link isn't really feasible. But if you look through his recent post history, you should find it.

 

[_machine]

Late to the debate here, but I want to know, just what do the modders themselves think?

There's no "singular view", but prominent modders like Dean Hall, fmpone and others (HL2VR, Durante, Arthmoor, SkyUI team) have defended the concept at least. Some have been concerned about the effect on community (few from the Beyond Skyrim team) and many about whether Valve and Bethesda can actually pull it off. Overall though, the vast majority has acknowledged that concept itself is mostly a positive thing since it only serves to give them options and the concept is certainly nothing new, and has worked for some other games in the pas. Many ex-modders have defended the concept since modding has been a prominent way of getting in the industry, but it can also be risky to work on something for years without getting paid.

 

[Anthemios]

The modding community for Bethesda games has been free and open for years. Take your self righteous BS about comparing people who want free mods to pirates somewhere else.

And previously...

I pay enough for DLC and I don't want to have to start paying more for mods. Am I cheap (you damn right).

What peerless advocacy.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

it can also be risky to work on something for years without getting paid.

Only if you go into it with the expectation, nay requirement, to make money.

And previously...

What peerless advocacy.

It's probably the opinion of many people. I imagine tons would simply not even bother with mods if they were all charging something. It would quickly turn into an app store situation where a very small group of people that manage to break through and get exposure make all of the money there is to be made and everyone else doesn't see a dime. It goes without saying that people become much more discerning about things when they cost money.

 

[Oemenia]

Durante (of DSFix fame) has posted. I'm on a phone, so looking up the link isn't really feasible. But if you look through his recent post history, you should find it.

There's no "singular view", but prominent modders like Dean Hall, fmpone and others (HL2VR, Durante, Arthmoor, SkyUI team) have defended the concept at least. Some have been concerned about the effect on community (few from the Beyond Skyrim team) and many about whether Valve and Bethesda can actually pull it off. Overall though, the vast majority has acknowledged that concept itself is mostly a positive thing since it only serves to give them options and the concept is certainly nothing new, and has worked for some other games in the pas. Many ex-modders have defended the concept since modding has been a prominent way of getting in the industry, but it can also be risky to work on something for years without getting paid.

Fair enough, can't a happy medium be found where large projects have some sort of monetisation. A good example would be the Black Mesa guys, they got the game out in a good shape and then went commercial, which means everyone's happy.

 

[Anthemios]

It would quickly turn into an app store situation where a very small group of people that manage to break through and get exposure make all of the money there is to be made and everyone else doesn't see a dime. It goes without saying that people become much more discerning about things when they cost money.

1. I don't see any modders complaining about how they deserve a share of the profits regardless of their output quality. You eat what you kill.

2. What's wrong with a higher standard of quality?

3. There are free apps on app stores. Free models on 3d model marketplaces. There are even free songs on soundcloud and bandcamp. People will still make free mods for exposure, fun and for the sake of preserving the good-will of their fans if the quality isn't up to par.

 

[Summoner]

We're going to remove the payment feature from the Skyrim workshop. For anyone who spent money on a mod, we'll be refunding you the complete amount. We talked to the team at Bethesda and they agree.

We've done this because it's clear we didn't understand exactly what we were doing. We've been shipping many features over the years aimed at allowing community creators to receive a share of the rewards, and in the past, they've been received well. It's obvious now that this case is different.

To help you understand why we thought this was a good idea, our main goals were to allow mod makers the opportunity to work on their mods full time if they wanted to, and to encourage developers to provide better support to their mod communities. We thought this would result in better mods for everyone, both free & paid. We wanted more great mods becoming great products, like Dota, Counter-strike, DayZ, and Killing Floor, and we wanted that to happen organically for any mod maker who wanted to take a shot at it.

But we underestimated the differences between our previously successful revenue sharing models, and the addition of paid mods to Skyrim's workshop. We understand our own game's communities pretty well, but stepping into an established, years old modding community in Skyrim was probably not the right place to start iterating. We think this made us miss the mark pretty badly, even though we believe there's a useful feature somewhere here.

Now that you've backed a dump truck of feedback onto our inboxes, we'll be chewing through that, but if you have any further thoughts let us know.

Gee, that was quite a backflip from their original stance....

SHOCKING interview with Valve employee about selling mods on the workshop

 

[Malitik Sabu]

I'm confused as to whether this is good news. Are you guys saying that people won't get paid anymore?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

1. I don't see any modders complaining about how they deserve a share of the profits regardless of their output quality. You eat what you kill.

2. What's wrong with a higher standard of quality?

3. There are free apps on app stores. Free models on 3d model marketplaces. There are even free songs on soundcloud and bandcamp. People will still make free mods for exposure, fun and for the sake of preserving the good-will of their fans if the quality isn't up to par.

1. My comment was in response to the sentiment that people are entitled to money for work done. In an app-store like market, there is zero guarantee for this. You see countless articles from indie devs talking about how hard it is to make money in these stores unless you manage a miraculous breakthrough that only a tiny group of individuals see.

2. Being able to charge for something does not guarantee or necessarily even encourage a higher standard of quality.

3. None of those are "mods" that depend on other people's work to even function.

 

[LurkerPrime]

I'm confused as to whether this is good news. Are you guys saying that people won't get paid anymore?

Modders won't get paid through Steam, at least for now.

It's for the best, because the way Valve & Bethesda set up the system was prone to problems. Suddenly, not only IP infringement is a concern, but also mod piracy or outright theft (be it code or content), which Valve was entirely unprepared to deal with. Plus, the established modding scene around Skyrim coupled with the pathetic profit split meant that it was a program doomed to failure from the beginning, due to both internal and external conflicts. How Valve never foresaw this we shall never know.

That said, I find it unlikely that this is the end of crowd-sourced DLC. There's too much money potentially on the table for Valve (or someone else) to not try again. Whether this will be a net positive for the traditional modding scene remains to be seen. And make no mistake: crowd-sourced DLC will never be the same thing as a freeform modding community.

 

[Malitik Sabu]

Modders won't get paid through Steam, at least for now.

It's for the best, because the way Valve & Bethesda set up the system was prone to problems. Suddenly, not only IP infringement is a concern, but also mod piracy or outright theft (be it code or content), which Valve was entirely unprepared to deal with. Plus, the established modding scene around Skyrim coupled with the pathetic profit split meant that it was a program doomed to failure from the beginning, due to both internal and external conflicts. How Valve never foresaw this we shall never know.

That said, I find it unlikely that this is the end of crowd-sourced DLC. There's too much money potentially on the table for Valve (or someone else) to not try again. Whether this will be a net positive for the traditional modding scene remains to be seen. And make no mistake: crowd-sourced DLC will never be the same thing as a freeform modding community.

Yeah that does sound a little, strange they didn't figure out something so obvious.

 

[Ventara]

Modders won't get paid through Steam, at least for now.

It's for the best, because the way Valve & Bethesda set up the system was prone to problems. Suddenly, not only IP infringement is a concern, but also mod piracy or outright theft (be it code or content), which Valve was entirely unprepared to deal with. Plus, the established modding scene around Skyrim coupled with the pathetic profit split meant that it was a program doomed to failure from the beginning, due to both internal and external conflicts. How Valve never foresaw this we shall never know.

That said, I find it unlikely that this is the end of crowd-sourced DLC. There's too much money potentially on the table for Valve (or someone else) to not try again. Whether this will be a net positive for the traditional modding scene remains to be seen. And make no mistake: crowd-sourced DLC will never be the same thing as a freeform modding community.

Yeah that does sound a little, strange they didn't figure out something so obvious.

Ditto. Valve really didn't put very much thought in to this.

 

[Malitik Sabu]

Ditto. Valve really didn't put very much thought in to this.

I'm almost certain they had some alternate reason for doing it, I doubt they were that clueless intentionally.

 

[AlphaProspector]

I'm almost certain they had some alternate reason for doing it, I doubt they were that clueless intentionally.

I wouldn't be so sure... Greenlight had no submission fee or limit/control to entries at first, allowing trolls to submit joke entries for free and non-stop. In fact, they had to bring down the whole thing and rework it before relaunching, adding the $100 fee and other things.

 

[PedroLumpy]

I'm confused as to whether this is good news. Are you guys saying that people won't get paid anymore?

Is it good or bad news? Well there's a lot of debate still ongoing, there is no hivemind. But as to people getting paid, no. The paid mods were removed, and refunds were issued

 

[GaimeGuy]

This is the thing that really gets me about all of this. People say "just don't buy it" if there's something I don't like about the game - but why should I completely give up on the game when I can voice my opinion and possibly get it changed?

There's only one Elder Scrolls series, and I love the lore/setting/etc., why should I say goodbye to all that just because I don't like the way the corporation behind it is going? What is so bad about consumers speaking out for what they want when it comes to a product they care about?



Not really, considering modding is generally done with the understanding that it's free. If you tell people it's free, they're going to assume that means it's free.

If they want donations they should be more up front about it.

Spoiler

Or don't mod at all, since it's been a hobbyist pursuit for a decade

It's more like 3 decades. People were editing the Smurfs into Castle Wolfstein in 1983.

Software has always had a huge underground scene which pushes the envelope through tinkering with commercial products, collaborating on open source projects, and building off of (free) work other people started and subsequently abandoned. It's an enthusiast scene, and sometimes, that effort yields results in the form of a buy out or commercialization of the product into a full-blown business. And that's good. But there's no need to muddy the waters by pushing money down to the lowest level of development possible. That just stifles creativity in ground-up software development, collaboration, and it also introduces barriers to entry in the form of liability for creators and price barriers for users.

The scene is healthy as it is. It doesn't need to be changed into something it's not.

 

[Malitik Sabu]

I wouldn't be so sure... Greenlight had no submission fee or limit/control to entries at first, allowing trolls to submit joke entries for free and non-stop. In fact, they had to bring down the whole thing and rework it before relaunching, adding the $100 fee and other things.

All they had to do with free Greenlight is a file size minimum, and maybe a community vote that let's Valve know that someone submitted pac-man clone 34.

 

[Bogey]

It may have been discussed already, but I found a statement that I think is absolutely terrifying.

Saw this on the official Bethesda blog:

This is not some money grabbing scheme by us. Even this weekend, when Skyrim was free for all, mod sales represented less than 1% of our Steam revenue.

They seem to be trying to show how little importance paid mods had economically. But I think they show the exact opposite. "Less than 1%" in that context to me reads like "less than 1%... but somewhere close in that general region". Doesn't really matter if its 0.9%, 0.8%, or 0.5%.

I think this is a GIANT revenue for Steam. I mean seriously, this game is many years old, paid mods had an absolutely horrific reputation in the community while it lasted, more "casual" players probably didn't even know that paid mod feature yet, and only very very few usable mods were actually in the paid shop at that time.
And yet, in spite of Steam having probably thousands of games in their shop, including dozens of new, crazy selling, recent AAA games such as GTA5 etc., the few paid Skyrim mods contributed to something potentially close to 1% of their overall revenues?

I can only hope they weren't implying anything, and the actual share was closer to 0.01% as I would've expected. Because if it was as huge as I'd think this statement implies - we'll be seeing paid mods again. Very, very soon.

 

[Bornstellar]

Late to the debate here, but I want to know, just what do the modders themselves think?

Conceptually paid mods is fine. However haphazardly dropping a poor implementation in a years old mod community is not.

 

[Calabi]

It may have been discussed already, but I found a statement that I think is absolutely terrifying.

Saw this on the official Bethesda blog:



They seem to be trying to show how little importance paid mods had economically. But I think they show the exact opposite. "Less than 1%" in that context to me reads like "less than 1%... but somewhere close in that general region". Doesn't really matter if its 0.9%, 0.8%, or 0.5%.

I think this is a GIANT revenue for Steam. I mean seriously, this game is many years old, paid mods had an absolutely horrific reputation in the community while it lasted, more "casual" players probably didn't even know that paid mod feature yet, and only very very few usable mods were actually in the paid shop at that time.
And yet, in spite of Steam having probably thousands of games in their shop, including dozens of new, crazy selling, recent AAA games such as GTA5 etc., the few paid Skyrim mods contributed to something potentially close to 1% of their overall revenues?

I can only hope they weren't implying anything, and the actual share was closer to 0.01% as I would've expected. Because if it was as huge as I'd think this statement implies - we'll be seeing paid mods again. Very, very soon.

I think they mean Bethesda's, there revenue not Valve's/Steam's overall revenue. Last I heard Gabe save they made about 10,000 dollars, and there werent that many mod's bought throughout, there's no way Steam's overall revenue is that low.

Mod's wont make Steam that much money, especially not for a lesser played game like Skyrim.

 

[Guri]

No, all it says is that donations are not very profitable. If being profitable is what you are after, then you won't use donations. That's just the way it is. That is confusing the issue with WHY donation is used; it is the only way to give money in a commune system. When you share everything freely, donation is the only transaction. It isn't done because it is the most efficient, it is done because it is socially acceptable in the system it is under. Any other means to obtain money will destroy the commune.

Donations work VERY well. Unless, that is, you just want to extract maximum profit for the least amount of work.

Not about profit, but paying the costs. It's not a "commune system" because you have to pay for the software you are going to use to create content. Then, maybe you are going to be hired by a company as a full-time job. It is capitalism. If you don't agree, just see it like this: if modders are not able to pay their costs, then won't continue to mod your favourite game.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

It may have been discussed already, but I found a statement that I think is absolutely terrifying.

Saw this on the official Bethesda blog:



They seem to be trying to show how little importance paid mods had economically. But I think they show the exact opposite. "Less than 1%" in that context to me reads like "less than 1%... but somewhere close in that general region". Doesn't really matter if its 0.9%, 0.8%, or 0.5%.

I think this is a GIANT revenue for Steam. I mean seriously, this game is many years old, paid mods had an absolutely horrific reputation in the community while it lasted, more "casual" players probably didn't even know that paid mod feature yet, and only very very few usable mods were actually in the paid shop at that time.
And yet, in spite of Steam having probably thousands of games in their shop, including dozens of new, crazy selling, recent AAA games such as GTA5 etc., the few paid Skyrim mods contributed to something potentially close to 1% of their overall revenues?

I can only hope they weren't implying anything, and the actual share was closer to 0.01% as I would've expected. Because if it was as huge as I'd think this statement implies - we'll be seeing paid mods again. Very, very soon.

Might wanna try reading what you post. No offense but it is pretty clear that is a blog by bethesda, not valve. And according to gabe on reddit, the revenue they generated via mod sales didn't even begin the cover the cost of just receiving emails about the system.

 

[HariKari]

TotalBiscuit posted an interview with the guy that runs Nexus and the modder behind the static mesh improvement mod. A lot of info that isn't mentioned elsewhere.

 

[Vallen Valiant]

Not about profit, but paying the costs. It's not a "commune system" because you have to pay for the software you are going to use to create content. Then, maybe you are going to be hired by a company as a full-time job. It is capitalism. If you don't agree, just see it like this: if modders are not able to pay their costs, then won't continue to mod your favourite game.

If they can't continue, then they should stop. You don't get it do you? I want mods to remain free, but I don't demand modders to do work for free. If they refuse to work for free then they should go do something else. Do you think you are THREATENING me? Free mods or no mods at all. Either works for me. Don't think "they will quit if they can't put food on the table" is somehow meant to mean something. Modders are free to start, modders are free to stop. If they want to quit then quit. That is the entire point of voluntary activity.

That is how a commune works. You are only a part of a Commune for as long as you wish to be.

 

[Kalnos]

TotalBiscuit posted an interview with the guy that runs Nexus and the modder behind the static mesh improvement mod. A lot of info that isn't mentioned elsewhere.

I have been listening to this for a while, I think they bring up some good points about Valve/Bethesda. I'm pretty sure a lot of users won't like their views.

 

[Durante]

TotalBiscuit posted an interview with the guy that runs Nexus and the modder behind the static mesh improvement mod. A lot of info that isn't mentioned elsewhere.

That's really good.

I didn't even know about the Nexus cut. I also very strongly agree with the SMIM modder regarding his whole point about professional umbrage-takers.

Edit:
Listening more to it, I also disagree with him on curation (as I explained in this thread), and I think his perspective on compatibility issues is limited. Sure, his mod won't break the game or have adverse interactions with others. But that's simply because it's an asset mod and not a behavioral mod.

 

[Almighty]

TotalBiscuit posted an interview with the guy that runs Nexus and the modder behind the static mesh improvement mod. A lot of info that isn't mentioned elsewhere.

Pretty good interview and I agree with a lot of what the two had to say. Though I think McCaskey is way off the mark with his repeated attempts to dismiss all that blow back as a small vocal minority. I am willing to bet that most of the people were mod users and not some randoms doing it for shits and giggles like he seems to think. I do agree with them that a lot of the people going on about how this will destroy the community probably aren't really part of said community and in my opinion were just using that as a smokescreen.

I also think the whole "You wouldn't pay 2 bucks for SkyUI?" is kind of missing the forest for the trees. Individually 2 bucks for a mod doesn't sound too bad, but start adding that up and you can easily reach a hefty bill.

 

[Guri]

If they can't continue, then they should stop. You don't get it do you? I want mods to remain free, but I don't demand modders to do work for free. If they refuse to work for free then they should go do something else. Do you think you are THREATENING me? Free mods or no mods at all. Either works for me. Don't think "they will quit if they can't put food on the table" is somehow meant to mean something. Modders are free to start, modders are free to stop. If they want to quit then quit. That is the entire point of voluntary activity.

That is how a commune works. You are only a part of a Commune for as long as you wish to be.

If you expect modders to spend money indefinitely just for you, then yes, you should expect them to stop. Because they will. It's silly to think of this as a threat. How so? Like I said, this isn't a commune. It's capitalism the moment you spend money to buy the tools to work on assets. It's sad that you prefer to have no mods than the option to have them paid. Anyway, the system will probably come back and, if that happens, you can just avoid mods from that moment all. It will be like no mods for you and life goes on.

 

[LurkerPrime]

TotalBiscuit posted an interview with the guy that runs Nexus and the modder behind the static mesh improvement mod. A lot of info that isn't mentioned elsewhere.

Only listened to part of it, but this is a good listen. I couldn't continue past the halfway mark because they get into such hypothetical territory that it gets sorta awkward. But their views are very interesting nonetheless.

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[lazygecko]

Pretty good interview and I agree with a lot of what the two had to say. Though I think McCaskey is way off the mark with his repeated attempts to dismiss all that blow back as a small vocal minority. I am willing to bet that most of the people were mod users and not some randoms doing it for shits and giggles like he seems to think. I do agree with them that a lot of the people going on about how this will destroy the community probably aren't really part of said community and in my opinion were just using that as a smokescreen.

I think they were moreso refering to people who may be mod users but don't really interact with the modding scene in any meaningful way. Ie the people who download mods they like, but they never leave comments or feedback or bug reports etc, and don't rate/endorse the mods. You can see this in a lot of the most popular mods on the Nexus in that their download to endorsement ratio is significantly more disproportionate than the more niche and involved ones. So what they're saying is that a lot of this "casual" demographic has suddenly come out of the woodwork (I think DarkOne has the statistics to back this up with as well) to partake in this internet hate campaign, and that this is not really representative of the actual visible modding community.

 

[superseohyun]

It may have been discussed already, but I found a statement that I think is absolutely terrifying.

Saw this on the official Bethesda blog:



They seem to be trying to show how little importance paid mods had economically. But I think they show the exact opposite. "Less than 1%" in that context to me reads like "less than 1%... but somewhere close in that general region". Doesn't really matter if its 0.9%, 0.8%, or 0.5%.

I think this is a GIANT revenue for Steam. I mean seriously, this game is many years old, paid mods had an absolutely horrific reputation in the community while it lasted, more "casual" players probably didn't even know that paid mod feature yet, and only very very few usable mods were actually in the paid shop at that time.
And yet, in spite of Steam having probably thousands of games in their shop, including dozens of new, crazy selling, recent AAA games such as GTA5 etc., the few paid Skyrim mods contributed to something potentially close to 1% of their overall revenues?

I can only hope they weren't implying anything, and the actual share was closer to 0.01% as I would've expected. Because if it was as huge as I'd think this statement implies - we'll be seeing paid mods again. Very, very soon.

holy shit less than 1% yet they still want to take 45%, almost twice more than the modder's cut?