Hey thanks! I obviously can't read a thing. And you didn't even link to his reply making it even easier!
Appreciate it! I searched through the AMA before asking but wasn't able to find where he mentioned it.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gabe Newell doing AMA on reddit about the mod paying thing right now
- Thread starter JustinBB7
- Start date
Hey thanks! I obviously can't read a thing. And you didn't even link to his reply making it even easier!
Appreciate it! I searched through the AMA before asking but wasn't able to find where he mentioned it.
balladofwindfishes
Member
30% is industry standard for digital store fronts. Heck, not even industry standard, standard in all digital store fronts no matter what you're selling.
The only companies that don't do 30% are ones like Humble Bundle, but it's obvious they work way different than other distributors.
Hey man, sometimes you need to learn to do things for yourself.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Did he talk about Half-Life 3?
What the fuck dude
Is there any reason to think he wouldn't? It's a little overdue!
Every single fucking digital store takes the exact same cut(only a couple outlier like Humble Bundle).
And you are going to link to your source for Gamestop taking 10%. Because that's bullshit. There's no way in hell that's even remotely true.
Yes, it will be made by modders, so everyone can create their own perfect version of hl3,this is the only way it can live up to its hype. Additional valve will take a 99% cut from each sale.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
it's the topic of the thread we're posting in and linked in the OP. shouldn't need to spoonfeed quotes when it's so obvious.
Cool.
God forbid people be civil. A specific point from the AMA is actually not the topic, jackass.
And those non-outliers are all greedy scumbags. The bigger the store, the more economies of scale come into play, making their overhead even less and making them scummier by definition. "Everyone else is doing it" is not a defense at all.
That's what the nazis said 
I can guarantee you they're not taking a 30% cut on new games. Most of their profit comes from used games, accessories and useless warranties.
You want a source? Here is one:
This guy says they make $5 on a $60 game. That's about 8.3%. I have no doubt this varies per game and per quantity bought (with the risk of unsold inventory digital stores don't have) so maybe they make 10% on one game and 20% on another.
Fact is, they make less margin than Steam and have a shitload more costs.
TechJunk
Member
I disagree. His solution is just trying to appease those people upset at paying for mods that used to be free. It doesn't do anything about the crazy cut the developer is NOT getting.
While it's good to see Valve actually reaching out to the community, I think the only way they fix this is like others have mentioned, adding a DONATION button, where all the money can go to the developer, even if that's not the default option.
FlutterPuffs
Member
25% is lower than average.
Look it up, use GoogleFu.
Also what Valve is doing isn't greedy, a PR clusterfuck like most of their recent announcements have been, but a lot of the outrage is from people who should probably take a look at how other digital stores are handling this kind of thing, and research why.
this is an assumption, and let me ask you, what incentive was there to make mods before ? oh wait
a lot of it is people talking out of their ass that don't really understand everything that goes into it, throwing assumptions into conversation as fact, and ignorance guiding a majority of responses
edit: if anything, Bethesda should be getting the smallest cut. Rumor is they take ~45%, but considering they already got paid for the base game, and mods are actually helping sell said base game, they should probably be getting maybe 20% max and shift the rest to the mod maker
A lot of the outrage is probably because of Valve launching this idea tied to the game that has had the greatest number of free mods available for the past 4 years.
That was a bad move in my opinion, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept itself.
That was a bad move in my opinion, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept itself.
Valve have no control over their own store? Valve doesn't have that much power over developers? Are you kidding me? They have an insane amount of power as a near-monopoly on digital sales.
Valve can decide whatever the fuck they want. If they say 70% goes to the mod creator as a minimum, then that'll be the law. Period. Bethesda is free to not approve it and make 0 money, or approve it and take a 21% cut. (70% of 30%).
If a modder sells $100 worth of mods, he would get $70, Bethesda would get $21 and Valve would get $9, practically just for breathing.
Under the current system, the modder would get $25, Bethesda gets $52.50 and Valve gets $23.50.
What a disgusting shit sandwich.
purvispisgah
Member
You'll have to wonder that if all mods available are paid, then the user base running 100+ mods will be a lot smaller, making usability on that point less of an issue.
LunaticHigh
Member
I don't really see what the uproar is about. You shouldn't be able to make any money off of unlicensed mods. Valve providing a means for creators to make a profit is a great step forward. Publishers, of course, should have the rights to set whatever margins they want. It's their product.
FlutterPuffs
Member
Sure! I'm sure maintaining the servers, building the whole Steam architecture and paying the Steam Support team (lol) is free.
Good god man. It's a business.
For a 4 year old game like Skyrim yes, Bethesda should be taking less.
My experience with retail (not gaming) is that there are usually multiple levels of profit on an item being made that an employee in a store would not usually see. There can be rebates paid by suppliers (essentially extra margin) that can be on a sliding scale depending on volume. Also there can be a annual % bonus paid on total volume.
Much discussion takes place over how much true pricing information to give out to stores. I know of branch managers running multi million dollar franchises that are unaware of the true profit they make on their stock.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
"be civil, jackass!"
Haha sure, pal. Just read the AMA if you're interested, Gabe only made a handful of posts anyway.
If you really can't be bothered, open up, here comes the choo choo train!
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/cqojx8y
balladofwindfishes
Member
For fun? To practice skills? To learn something new? To build a portfolio? Because you wanted it in your game?
Strawman argument. I never said it's free. What I said is this can all be covered with LESS than 10% while being VERY profitable. I know how much bandwidth, hardware, code and opex cost at the scale Valve operates at. If you're going to claim that charging 10% would stop Steam from being profitable, then do so. I dare you
Why should modders be getting 70%? Under the old system, they shouldn't of been earning revenue on property that they didnt own/license. Now, Valve is providing a means for them to legitimately earn money. Heck, if they don't like the current system, they're free to stick with the old. The pay what you want addition will also allow users some flexibility. The idea of 'donations' so they get a larger cut is simply legally wrong (the IP owner should be compensated for their property at the rate they want. After all, its THEIR property.).
If a modder feels the cut is unfair, they should go work on an indie game and own everything from the ground up or find another property that has a more generous publisher. The IP owner holds all the cards. No one forced a modder to mod their game. Hell, Bethesda could of gone full Nintendo on them and smited them every attempt along the way. Instead they opted to leave it open. Now they want a large cut.
Finally, the idea that Valve can force the IP owners is flawed. First and foremost, Valve has very rarely forced issues. When they tried, EA went ahead and pushed Origin. Valve's hands off but offering data-backed support seems the most logical way to go about these things.
If this proves to be a valid revenue stream, I'd expect more developers/publishers to release tools for their product as a means of extended revenue generation. That sounds like we win to me.
Check these out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/cqomf2t
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/cqokoo9
If you take it at face value, Valve does not want to be the big moral authority police as a storefront, they rather let the developers decide what's best for themselves and their modders. Laissez-faire, take it or leave it.
I'm somewhat wary of consumers speaking on behalf of the entire modder community: "Modders don't need to be paid, it's fun for them!!"
And those non-outliers are all greedy scumbags. The bigger the store, the more economies of scale come into play, making their overhead even less and making them scummier by definition. "Everyone else is doing it" is not a defense at all.That's what the nazis said
I can guarantee you they're not taking a 30% cut on new games. Most of their profit comes from used games, accessories and useless warranties.
You want a source? Here is one:
This guy says they make $5 on a $60 game. That's about 8.3%. I have no doubt this varies per game and per quantity bought (with the risk of unsold inventory digital stores don't have) so maybe they make 10% on one game and 20% on another.
Fact is, they make less margin than Steam and have a shitload more costs.
Yet you can find countless examples of developers claiming they get a much bigger cut of the total money on Steam that they do off the retail. Guess what? Digital removes a crapload of the costs associated with selling your game on retail. You can't really expect that digital will match that: the developers are actually getting more money from the sale on digital than they are on physical. This is a fact.
There's also this:
That's.... quite close to 30% actually! And then you consider that there's no such thing as Platform Royalty on PC, and Gamestop's cut is actually 30% or even more.
awesome! All of these are correct. and luckily, none of this changes.
Exactly.
And you have direct experience with the good that can come out of Valve allowing content creators to get paid for their work.
So many reasonings for outrage seem unfounded to me.
FlutterPuffs
Member
Strawman argument. I never said it's free. What I said is this can all be covered with LESS than 10% while being VERY profitable. I know how much bandwidth, hardware, code and opex cost at the scale Valve operates at. If you're going to claim that charging 10% would stop Steam from being profitable, then do so. I dare you
Who says anything about it stopping Steam from being profitable? What I was about is that Valve has the right and grounds to take 25% profit sharing, which as everyone here has told you, below average of what most digital stores take.
They also should, because they are a business and should never be a charity.
It's great that you know how much bandwith, hardware, code and opex cost Valve operates at. I don't understand why though, you are so against them taking 25%, which what Google Play, YouTube, iTunes does.
If you have an issue with Bethesda taking more than 45% then yes, I agree.
Hmm, I'm just wondering. What's stopping me to create a free implementation of SkyUI, the most popular Skyrim mods that's currently going to the Steam Paywall? I'll call it FreeUI, and will implement similar functions like SkyUI but not an exact copy.
Or I put out a mod of a mod. That free mod version mod that has a pop up? I'll mod it so the pop up gone and put it on the Steamworks for free.
Or I put out a mod of a mod. That free mod version mod that has a pop up? I'll mod it so the pop up gone and put it on the Steamworks for free.
balladofwindfishes
Member
You throw "profit" into the list and it can skew those other reasons to have less of an impact. You may end up like Dota, where unique sets tend to get drowned out over sets that are tied to major tournaments of dubious quality or sets that add... titillation to certain heroes, or sets that advertise themselves well and then get in game and look bad because the dolled up workshop advertisement was better than what was actually made.
Creating a similar mod to that of SkyUI would be totally fine. Nothing to stop you.
Modding a mod to remove the popup and then offering that up? Thats infringing and they could have Steam pull it (and ban you from the market place).
As long as you weren't taking the code from another mod, you can make the same thing. That's my understanding, anyway.
SodiumBenzoate
Member
FlutterPuffs
Member
Anyway, as a Dota 2 / TF2 player, and watching all the great work the community has done with their items sets and skin, I'm just glad Skyrim modders now have a way to be paid for their hard work. Things are a little bit of a clusterfuck at the moment, and hopefully it smoothens out.
Also hopefully Bethesda has a change of heart and take less cut than they are at the moment.
Also hopefully Bethesda has a change of heart and take less cut than they are at the moment.
I agree. But none of that would be there, at all, if the system wasn't in place. I'd much rather have 1 great set for every 10 shit sets being put into the game than none at all, because I have the freedom to choose and ignore the content I am uninterested in. And unlike Dota, skyrim apparently has a refund option.
I can only really speak for myself, but I do Dota full time because I like it, and that it's even an option. Sets take me, on average, a full month to make. Full time. I could not do this at all without the workshop. Not even an option. And Skyrim won't even have the same level of curation Dota does, which means a couple things. The first being, I would be able to sell EVERYTHING I make for Skyrim, but the second is, I have a lot more to compete with on the actual sales page. I have no idea what the result of this will be and I don't think anyone has the data to make a good decision at this point on whether it's better/worse/the same.
What I can say in regards to this, is that there will be other people like me, who love skyrim, and if given the opportunity and can pay their bills via the workshop, will spend their time doing mod work full time. Maybe some of your favorite creators of Skyrim mods would have the freedom to leave their jobs and do this full time, if they so wish, and give you the quality content that you rave to your friends about, but on a more consistent schedule. Or with more polish. Or bigger scope. That's what I'm trying to get at.
Most of the negatives being thrown about are either non-issues (modding is dead! rip! 25%! how dare they!(more would be amazing, yes, but let's the content creator decide if it's worth it to them)), or unfounded (they will charge higher prices!). The biggest issues I see, that have been mentioned enough that hopefully Bethesda has their ears open, are the inter-dependencies skyrim mods have with one another. Hopefully the modders don't go down the road of cock-blocking each other, and if they do, decide to work with others a way around these issues.
I think it's a bit simplistic to act like money won't change anything community-wide, especially with regards to cooperation between modders.
I liked the example someone gave before of Wikis - everyone contributes for free because the expectation is that everyone else is also contributing for free, and whatever you put in is being paid forward and returned to you in the form of shared knowledge and a more comprehensive Wiki.
How does that change when some people contribute for free, but they learn that others are getting paid? Rationally their reasons for contributing shouldn't change ("I'll still receive something in return"), but people have a definite bias against contributing when they learn others will receive more for the same or lesser effort. "Why should I contribute for free when someone is getting paid to do this? This takes up my time and effort; I don't want to be a chump and get taken advantage of. If they're getting paid, they should do the work; I'm not bothering. Or, I won't bother unless I'm getting paid too - fair's fair."
So you can have situations where modding communities that were formerly pretty free with exchanging information, "loaning" mods to others, collaborating, etc. become divided, distrustful ("Are you trying to make money off this?"), and reticent to contribute - the past two days provide a really stark example of that.
I don't buy the line of thinking that money is just another harmless incentive like recognition or thanks, and everyone's going to be fine with some modders making money off of a shared knowledge pool while others don't - clearly, many people aren't okay with it. It can be a powerful incentive, sure, and maybe in the long run you could argue that it will ultimately benefit mods (if implemented and introduced properly, which I don't think Valve has done), but for better or worse it clearly changes how modders will interact with one another.
At least for the latter possibility, they have a "try and refund" policy and also community review/feedback.
I'm worried we are speaking on behalf of modders, that the "shared knowledge" reward is sufficient for them. Maybe they don't mind getting paid? Who knows.
FlutterPuffs
Member
There will probably some shit-flingin'! But tbh this probably has to do more with the modders attitudes than about money.
The Dota 2 workshop communities seem very friendly, so I wouldn't worry much.
Well Gabe's pr team handled that ama as conservatively as possible. Tldr it's full steam ahead, we just don't understand how good it actually is, blame the devs.
This is like the ms pr team at the early Xbox one interviews trying to explain how good all the drm was.
A donation button would work well but it won't happen.
This is like the ms pr team at the early Xbox one interviews trying to explain how good all the drm was.
A donation button would work well but it won't happen.
Andodalf
Banned
Guys, Bethesda has every right to not let the modders make a dime, legally. This is a landmark. Can you imagine Microsoft or Activision letting the community make map packs and weapons, then getting paid for them? This rocks, and free mods are still available. The only problem I see with this is compatability problems being a bugger.
It wasn't me that wanted it. And here you are talking about not wanting to read lmao
balladofwindfishes
Member
This isn't even the first time Bethesda has paid people who made mods. They hired a dude who made an Oblivion arrow mod to work on the Skyrim arrow system.
Nobody has issue with mod makers being paid. There are just better ways to do it than uncurated, not QA'd, outsourced DLC, which this system is basically.