Support NeoGAF

[Juke Joint Jezebel]

One of the toughest things about paid mods would be the policies for how a buyer would be compensated for a mod they've purchases that doesn't work anymore, has had it's support ended by the mod creator, or hasn't been updated to work with the latest version of a game? Once you start selling stuff like this it becomes more than just a project somebody could continue updating on their own time or could quit updating whenever they want to, it becomes a product. Certain standards and consistency comes with that.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Steam should have a verified Patreon style service for modders.

 

[bounchfx]

As a modder myself (kind of) I'm still in awe of the amount of people that think the creator of the original game doesn't deserve a cut.

In fact, the entire fucking fiasco was blown out of proportion. It was a choice modders made to be included into the pay system. Personally I think it should have been handled by adding an optional donate or pay what you want system, and the fact remains that the modders could have still put their mods up for free if they wanted. But instead we have the community going all SJW and tearing it down. The plus side to this is that hopefully we get a much better incarnation in the future. But it's inevitable that it will return.

The only legitimate issue as far as I'm concerned is the one about stolen mods and code. Gotta make sure there's a good way to prevent or limit that

And to be clear, I'm all for modders getting most of the % share. Or more of it. But to act like the original game dev deserve none of the distributor service doesn't either is just silly. I can attest as someone that's done a lot of work for dota that I am more than grateful to receive 25% for my work. More would of course be nice but this is also great
I didn't create dota. I didn't spend millions making and advertising and improving it. But I am given the opportunity to participate and get my stuff out there thanks to it

I welcome an optional paid mod future and still believe it will pave way to great content.

Steam should have a verified Patreon style service for modders.

this is a cool idea

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I'll pay for mods if/when they're properly vetted. Half the time I use mods I end up having to invest my own time making them work, and modders aren't always the best at describing directions.

 

[jshackles]

One of the toughest things about paid mods would be the policies for how a buyer would be compensated for a mod they've purchases that doesn't work anymore, has had it's support ended by the mod creator, or hasn't been updated to work with the latest version of a game? Once you start selling stuff like this it becomes more than just a project somebody could continue updating on their own time or could quite whenever they want to, it becomes a product.

This is a good point and also speaks to the fact that games today are traditionally in motion for months or years after release. The difficult part for me (as a modder of sorts in this regard) is that the company chooses to share 0 information with me on their upcoming changes - meaning once something changes, I'm typically scrambling to make things work again. I do it because I feel it's what my user base deserves, but I imagine it being a customer service nightmare when you introduce the aspect of money changing hands and meeting customer expectations.

 

[Netherscourge]

I hate that Valve and developers want a cut of a Modder's profits.

Valve and the developers should just be happy other people's mods are selling these games in the first place.

I agree with an optional donation system, embedded in the game for modders. But they should get 100% of the profit for THEIR work.

 

[ghibli99]

I was paying for mods as far back as the Apple II days, where I'd order a disk in the mail for ~$10 that would allow me to edit my characters in games like The Bard's Tale. Sure, I could hex edit them, but I liked the convenience that a dedicated tool gave me. I wouldn't mind throwing a few bucks at mod creators. I don't even mind if Valve gets their cut if Steam is where it's being hosted (again, convenience). I don't use mods a lot though, but I would have been happy to pay for some of the ones I used for The Witcher 3.

 

[packy34]

Completely and utterly disagree. Modding is about community above all. It's about passion for adding something to something else you love. If you start forcing price tags on mods, everything comes crashing down; all the passion is driven out by opportunists trying to cash in on a new "gold rush". It happened during the 24hr period where Skyrim mods were allowed to add price tags.

Maybe there's a better way for mods to seek donations, but I can't support fixed price mods.

 

[Bluth54]

Really they need to allow modders to put an optional donation button to mods hosted on Steam. Let players decide if they want to tip modders (and have all the money, aside from taxes go to the modder).

I really hope Valve doesn't read forums, they'd go bankrupt within a decade with all these totally feasible and amazing business tips being thrown around.

I'm sure Valve as a whole does, I know for a fact that the TF2 team pretty obsessively reads fourms and the TF2 sub-reddit

 

[Generalpsyduck]

Im not okay with paying for mods. Its always been free and and should remain so.

 

[Abilidebob]

No, you can't say valve is paying the modders when valve themselfs doesn't invest a single cent into them. They're enabling modders to earn money yes, but valve is not the one who pays, the monetary stream is still coming 100% from the community,

Paying implies that they sacrifice a portion of their own financial gain, to do the right thing, not finding a way for modders to get paid by a third party while syphoning profit in the process.

By this logic, valve is also paying developers because they publish their games on a storefront and take a 30% cut

They didn't invest a single cent in them? Really? The entire workshop infrastructure, modding tools, fixing problems with approved mods, curation for the items. The game itself. I can see that it'd be better for modders and item makers to get more money, but it's just silly to say that they didn't invest a single cent on those.

 

[Hektor]

As a modder myself (kind of) I'm still in awe of the amount of people that think the creator of the original game doesn't deserve a cut.

In fact, the entire fucking fiasco was blown out of proportion. It was a choice modders made to be included into the pay system. Personally I think it should have been handled by adding an optional donate or pay what you want system, and the fact remains that the modders could have still put their mods up for free if they wanted. But instead we have the community going all SJW and tearing it down. The plus side to this is that hopefully we get a much better incarnation in the future. But it's inevitable that it will return.

The only legitimate issue as far as I'm concerned is the one about stolen mods and code. Gotta make sure there's a good way to prevent or limit that

And to be clear, I'm all for modders getting most of the % share. Or more of it. But to act like the original game dev deserve none of the distributor service doesn't either is just silly. I can attest as someone that's done a lot of work for dota that I am more than grateful to receive 25% for my work. More would of course be nice but this is also great
I didn't create dota. I didn't spend millions making and advertising and improving it. But I am given the opportunity to participate and get my stuff out there thanks to it

I welcome an optional paid mod future and still believe it will pave way to great content

Feel free to elaborate as to why you think the developer deserves an additional cut after having sold the game to both the modder and the people that use them for 70$ each, despite not providing anything at all of further value

 

[The Hamburglar]

dont agree at all with this, especially with the fact that he's spouting the bollocks because he wants to profit from it.

 

[PnCIa]

This is such a slippery slope.
Once you get forced compensation in the form of money, you have an obligation to maintain a certain quality. Imagine you "buy" a mod for 5€ and it breaks after every patch? Or updates to the mod itself are always in an unstable state since the person behind it is not doing it fulltime and a ton more work would be involved to get it working 100%.
I dont think it would work with the way modding itself works right now.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Feel free to elaborate as to why you think the developer deserves an additional cut after having sold the game to both the modder and the people that use them for 70$ each, despite not providing anything at all of further value

What if they did provide modding tools?

 

[FyreWulff]

re: developer of the game getting a cut. It's basically the modder paying a license for using the developer's existing world and tech to sell content within.

Example: This was already done with Rock Band Network. People could make or license songs and make the note charts for them and distribute them to buyers for Rock Band 2 and 3 on Xbox 360. The RBN author split the proceeds between themselves, Harmonix, and Microsoft (and Sony and Nintendo if your song made it over to their platforms).

Harmonix definitely deserved a cut as you were using the engine they invested millions of dollars in at no upfront cost to you (to get started, you only needed to sign up for XNA - which Harmonix didn't not see a penny of, and you could download the authoring tools for free) to distribute content.


It's like saying "why do I have to pay for Netflix when I already pay for access to the Internet?", but for game content, if you think the developer should be excluded from a cut.

 

[Par Score]

I will never be okay with paying for mods and will always oppose the introduction of even the option to allow for paid mods.

This industry has shown again and again that once something can be paid for it eventually will be paid for.

Probably should be pubs paying modders rather than consumers considering the amount of advertising they get.

This is how it should be done, and of course how it wont be done. Publishers get all the benefit from mods revitalising or popularising their games, but of course they want none of the cost.

 

[FyreWulff]

If developers have to pay modders out of the profits from the game itself you will basically just make them meta-publishers and they won't have money to pay every modder, and if they venture to do so, each modder would be making at most, 3 digit sums from a millions selling game. Companies like Certain Affinity that basically exist in that business model do so because they're not splitting Doom/Halo/whatever proceeds with thousands of other companies.

That's such a hilarious non-starter.

If you don't want to pay for labor, don't pay for the content, and don't download it.

 

[bounchfx]

Feel free to elaborate as to why you think the developer deserves an additional cut after having sold the game to both the modder and the people that use them for 70$ each, despite not providing anything at all of further value

because without them the ecosystem would not exist, there would be no place for those particular mods. I can't speak for TES as much as I can the valve titles, but I know I'm grateful for the opportunity and glad they took the time to set up the systems, guidelines, marketing, available asset downloads, and host it all.

It's clearly different per game and the revenue split should be reflective as to what the original developer offers, but they should still receive some type of compensation for being the rights/IP holders and creating the game systems to begin with, despite if they've already got their initial sale

and I want to take the time to point out again that there should be no mandate that mods should or have to cost money. It should be up to the discretion of the modder. I cannot believe that is even up for debate.

edit: Fyrewulff covered it nicely

 

[Fantastapotamus]

This is how it should be done, and of course how it wont be done. Publishers get all the benefit from mods revitalising or popularising their games, but of course they want none of the cost.

I've got no issues in paying people for providing value.

People should be compensated for their work.

But considering the legs some games can get from modding, I think studios themselves should pony some coin up as well.

Out of curiosity, how would you structure this? Pubs pay after a mod reaches a certain download threshold? Who would define that threshold and how much would they get paid? Does it matter what the content of the mod is? Should somebody who made a popular nude mod get paid the same as a team that made total conversion?

Things aren't always as simple as it seems

PS: This is not me saying that this isn't how it should work, just that it's not that easy

 

[NullPointer]

I've got no issues in paying people for providing value.

People should be compensated for their work.

But considering the legs some games can get from modding, I think studios themselves should pony some coin up as well.

 

[Gattsu25]

I'd rather give the modder 100%.... At least 90%. I'm OK with a donate page that redirects outside of steam.

The issue I have is that valve and 3rd parties are trying figure out a way to take a cut from these modded games when they are already benefiting from increases game sales.

Agreed with everything you said + the reasoning behind it.

My post was only in response to someone indicating that Valve's 30% cut was non-negotiable.

Best thing Valve can do IMO is prompt a donation when you download a mod and send all of the donations to the modder outside of the processing fees. Anything else and you run into the problem of people not donating because it's an optional step that's out of the way.

 

[Abilidebob]

Feel free to elaborate as to why you think the developer deserves an additional cut after having sold the game to both the modder and the people that use them for 70$ each, despite not providing anything at all of further value

I didn't the characters I'm making the items for. I didn't create the world the game is set in. I didn't create the art style of the game. I didn't model the characters. I didn't voice them. I didn't create the character lore. I didn't program the game to accept the items I'm making. I didn't create the mod tools. I didn't create the Workshop. I didn't pay the people curating my items. I'm not the one that in the end implemented the items in the game, nor I had to do anything for the items to get marketed in one way or the other.

Just because you bought a Frozen blu-ray doesn't mean you have the right to make and sell Elsa dolls at Disney World without paying Disney.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Here are some other questions, that need to be asked:
What if your game doesn't sell anymore but has an active modding scene? Do you still pay for new mods? Should only big companies (and what defines a big company) pay, but smaller indie studios not? Does the price of the game play a role? What happens when a mod breaks the game? Should everybody get paid or only certain "certified" modders? Does it matter if the publisher/developer approves that mod?

Again, I'm not against the idea but people need to consider that there is a lot to this idea of publishers paying for mods.

 

[collige]

What if they did provide modding tools?

I don't see any reason why a software developer should claim any sort of ownership over product created with that software. It's not like Digidesign takes a cut of sales from music recorded in Pro Tools.

 

[Par Score]

Out of curiosity, how would you structure this? Pubs play after a mod reaches a certain download threshold?

Assuming this is done through Steam Workshop, Valve would keep track of overall time spent playing each game, vs the time playing that same game with any given mod active.

There would then be several thresholds which, once met, would grant the mod creators a gradually increasing share of the game's future revenue.

These thresholds could even grant certain mods and modders titles, like if a mod has some crazy 75% attach rate it becomes an "Essential Mod" or whatever.

Game with 0 popular mods: Valve 30% Dev 70%
Game with 5 popular mods, each of which have a 10% attachment rate: Valve 30%, Dev 65%, Modders 1% x 5
Game with 2 popular mods, with 50% and 75% attachment rates: Valve 30%, Dev 57.5%, Modders 5% + 7.5%

(Numbers for illustrative purposes only)

Not a perfect idea by any means, but it begins to "solve" the DayZ "problem".

 

[NullPointer]

Out of curiosity, how would you structure this? Pubs pay after a mod reaches a certain download threshold? Who would define that threshold and how much would they get paid? Does it matter what the content of the mod is? Should somebody who made a popular nude mod get paid the same as a team that made total conversion?

Maybe you could have a mix of paid mods, free mods and official sponsored mods where the pubs work a deal out with the mod makers. Maybe something similar to how Sony or MS pays for Gold and PS+ titles.

I don't really have any solid suggestions on the mechanisms here though, just that I think the principle of paying for value applies both to buyers and publishers/studios.

 

[Spirited]

Agreed with everything you said + the reasoning behind it.

My post was only in response to someone indicating that Valve's 30% cut was non-negotiable.

Best thing Valve can do IMO is prompt a donation when you download a mod and send all of the donations to the modder outside of the processing fees. Anything else and you run into the problem of people not donating because it's an optional step that's out of the way.

It is non-negotiable. Why should valve provide their services(Hosting, resources and exposure for example) for free and lose on it. By your reasoning valve (sony, microsoft and any other store fronts too) shouldn't even take a cut from games because they didn't "make" them, they just sell it on their store front.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Assuming this is done through Steam Workshop, Valve would keep track of overall time spent playing each game, vs the time playing that same game with any given mod active.

There would then be several thresholds which, once met, would grant the mod creators a gradually increasing share of the game's revenue.

These thresholds could even grant certain mods and modders titles, like if a mod has some crazy 75% attach rate it becomes an "Essential Mod" or whatever.

Game with 0 popular mods: Valve 30% Dev 70%
Game with 5 popular mods, each of which have a 10% attachment rate: Valve 30%, Dev 65%, Modders 1% x 5
Game with 2 popular mods, with 50% and 75% attachment rates: Valve 30%, Dev 57.5%, Modders 5% + 7.5%

(Numbers for illustrative purposes only)

Not a perfect idea by any means, but it begins to "solve" the DayZ "problem".

Does the size of the mod matter? Does it matter if the game was sold during a sale but the mod was downloaded much later? How long do developers have to pay modders? Do they HAVE to pay them, even if they don't like the content of the mod (for example if they deem it offensive)? Aren't mods that are created way later at a gigantic disadvantage despite possibly adding much more content since the overall time spent playing is much higher?

To make it clear again, I'm not trying to shit on this idea, it makes a lot of sense. I just try to highlight problems with it to show that it's not that easy.

Maybe you could have a mix of paid mods, free mods and official sponsored mods where the pubs work a deal out with the mod makers. Maybe something similar to how Sony or MS pays for Gold and PS+ titles.

I don't really have any solid suggestions on the mechanisms here though, just that I think the principle of paying for value applies both to buyers and publishers/studios.

Obviously, how could you? And I'm not trying to go for a "AHA! Not a perfect solution, got you!" here, hope it doesn't come across like it. I'm just trying to highlight potential problems, since I feel like a lot of people (not you two!) are underestimating the complications.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

Totally agree with this.

Basically, people should be able to charge whatever they want for a Mod. Make it free, charge 30 cents, charge $10, whatever suits it best. I know that people hate this idea, because they think this is some ploy to destroy the virtue of the mod system.

But in reality, this is granting people the ability to sell mods that use a games engine, maybe even sell fan games based on popular IP. It could be an amazing thing in that sense.

As a developer though, the reality is that you can't sustain a game team without any income, especially not a good one, unless you are rich, and working in your free time means you will likely have an incredibly crippled social life (games take so much damn time and work to make), or it will take ages to complete anything ambitious (Just look at Black Mesa).

I think allowing people to charge for mods, although it will also have some serious problems, is at its core, could be a great thing.

 

[Gattsu25]

It is non-negotiable. Why should valve provide their services(Hosting, resources and exposure for example) for free and lose on it. By your reasoning valve (sony, microsoft and any other store fronts too) shouldn't even take a cut from games because they didn't "make" them, they just sell it on their store front.

No, by following my reasoning you end up with the current situation as it is today. Valve hosts the mods and distributes them through the workshop. Most mods are priced at $0.00 and valve foots the bill on hosting and bandwidth.

Valve and the publishers both make money on the sales of the game which have longer legs than others due to the more vibrant community and new experiences.

Mods distributed outside of Steam obviously don't apply.

 

[NullPointer]

To make it clear again, I'm not trying to shit on this idea, it makes a lot of sense. I just try to highlight problems with it to show that it's not that easy.

Oh yeah, and you're most likely absolutely right. And its less an expectation on my end than something I think would be nice to see.

 

[pa22word]

I think the best way to do it is via the Black Mesa route.


Make mod (or presentable WIP for proof of concept purposes), get permission to use IP from publisher, sell on platforms of your choosing. All other scenarios of hackneyed forced Steam integration to beat around the bush seem dumb, really.

Bethesda should have set up some kind of community fund to help publish mods over a decade ago. They see nothing but huge benefits from mods, and higher class mods with actual budgets to implement content/fixes/hire talent faster would only pad their bottom line of people buying their games in droves.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

I think a lot of what would have been mods now are becoming indie games. But the ones that do make mods deserve some cash. I would pay straight up for an FWE mod for Fallout 4, or one that adds more quest outcomes / stat checks into the game.

 

[Spirited]

No, by following my reasoning you end up with the current situation as it is today. Valve hosts the mods and distributes them through the workshop. Most mods are priced at $0.00 and valve foots the bill on hosting and bandwidth.

Valve and the publishers both make money on the sales of the game which have longer legs than others due to the more vibrant community and new experiences.

Mods distributed outside of Steam obviously don't apply.

Yeah you're right, sorry. Though I still see no way that Valve (or any other company in this kind of situation) would just not take the "standard" 30% when the thing they are hosting are making money.

 

[Nessus]

I'd pay a small fee for quality mods that worked flawlessly and could be installed with a single click.

But I'd want some sort of curation and quality control (like making sure different mods worked well together), something Steam really sucks at.

 

[Nzyme32]

Steam should have a verified Patreon style service for modders.

That is a pretty good idea. Even if such donations are small, it would still be meaningful. However, the problem so far is that donation doesn't work well at all, people just don't bother.

What might work is a patreon style system to help build upon something and improve it. Much like Valve have done with Dota2 and bringing back the "paid mod idea" in the form of a pass where people can get extra little things for that particular mod mode, while everyone else can still participate for free, in a way giving an incentive (other than wanting to support that person) to help them out. This whole idea really also need the developer to pitch in so everyone is actually doing something.

 

[Renekton]

.

aka we'd love to monetize the community fixing our games.

This is reductive, modders add content and value.

 

[Nzyme32]

aka we'd love to monetize the community fixing our games.

Long War 2 is something that I would be happy to put some money towards - they didn't fix anything, they made a game mode that is wonderful way to play the game. Valve didn't do shit, but Firaxis were involved in some sense.

It's pretty facetious to reduce modding to just valve getting games "fixed"

 

[Budi]

I liked the earlier idea they tried. But I agree that the modder needed a bigger cut. Wasn't half of it going to pub then? Modder should get the biggest chunk imo.

Also it's funny to see these "sure but modder should get 95% then!" Like that's not gonna happen, they know it. So that's a great way to pretend that they wish modders would get compensated for their work. But are using the Valve/Pub cut as a shield. Talking about publisher and Valve greed, while getting stuff for free themselves. "Why don't publisher pay for it?" Why don't you, you are the one using the product? Several modders already give an option to donate, but as already stated in this thread it doesn't really happen. People who want to share their stuff for free would still be able to do so I think. But those who want to profit from it, should give a cut to those who make it possible.

 

[messiaen]

One of the toughest things about paid mods would be the policies for how a buyer would be compensated for a mod they've purchases that doesn't work anymore, has had it's support ended by the mod creator, or hasn't been updated to work with the latest version of a game? Once you start selling stuff like this it becomes more than just a project somebody could continue updating on their own time or could quit updating whenever they want to, it becomes a product. Certain standards and consistency comes with that.

Wouldn't it be treated the same as a game that doesn't work anymore? I.e. the customer is fucked and has to figure it out themselves.

 

[Hektor]

They didn't invest a single cent in them? Really? The entire workshop infrastructure, modding tools, fixing problems with approved mods, curation for the items. The game itself. I can see that it'd be better for modders and item makers to get more money, but it's just silly to say that they didn't invest a single cent on those.

All things that are done because it benefits valve.

Again: The statement "valve paying modders" implies that valve takes a financial hit to benefit the modders, not gains money by having other people pay modders.

Your entire argument is built around this weird idea that valve is paying modders by building a storefront in which i can pay modders money and have valve profit off of it.

Valve enabling me to pay modders is not valve paying modders.

I've now accidentally repeated the same thing in three paragraphs because you don't seem to get it. But i'm gonna let it stand like this.

If 100% of the revenue stream towards the modder are coming from the community and valve takes a cut, valve does not pay modder, even if they built the enabling system. It is the community. They are the factor in the equation that ends up giving the modder money. Not valve.

What if they did provide modding tools?

Modding tools have been for ages part of the full priced package because these devs know that they move copies.

My point being is that they aren't proving anything of further value that would justify them taking a cut from every mod created. They'd simply be taking that additional money because they could.

It's like saying "why do I have to pay for Netflix when I already pay for access to the Internet?", but for game content, if you think the developer should be excluded from a cut.

Just because you bought a Frozen blu-ray doesn't mean you have the right to make and sell Elsa dolls at Disney World without paying Disney.

What is it with videogames and awful examples.

I didn't the characters I'm making the items for. I didn't create the world the game is set in. I didn't create the art style of the game. I didn't model the characters. I didn't voice them. I didn't create the character lore.

These things are done to sell the game and would exist just as well if mods weren't a thing, they are covered by the game's sales and no justification to take an additional cut oter than that they simply can.

I didn't program the game to accept the items I'm making. I didn't create the mod tools. I didn't create the Workshop. I didn't pay the people curating my items. I'm not the one that in the end implemented the items in the game, nor I had to do anything for the items to get marketed in one way or the other.

These things are not provided by the developer and therefore completely irrelevant to my question.

re: developer of the game getting a cut. It's basically the modder paying a license for using the developer's existing world and tech to sell content within.

I have yet to see a reason as to why a modder should pay this license fee and why it isn't part of the package that comes with the game itself, just like how it's been with free mods in the past.

Your Harmonix example is cool and in that case it makes sense as the modding tools themselfs are free. But that usually is not the case and the only way to access most games mod tools is to buy the game, meaning the company already profits off of it at that point.




________


Yes, i understand, the developer made the game. I'm not dumb. But it isn't at all a reason as to why they should by entitled to further profit off of other people's work on it long after the initial sales that netteted them an inital profit. You'rs are only reason as to why they can do this.

 

[rashbeep]

Valve just want to profit from mods.

Seeing as how they've monetized the shit out of so much content that used to be free, yea pretty much.

 

[FyreWulff]

why it isn't part of the package that comes with the game itself, just like how it's been with free mods in the past.

Because you're only paying for a copy of the game, not the inherent legal rights of the game itself.

And "how it's been" has actually been a legal grey area.

 

[Savitar]

The only reason they want modders to be compensated is so they can take a slice of the profits.

If there wasn't anything in it for them you wouldn't see Valve give two shits.

Thankfully people loudly voiced their concerns the last time they tried to charge people.

 

[Pacotez]

30% is going to Valve or whichever platform holder it happens to be. The remaining 70%, I'm torn on. The people who made the original game probably deserve a cut, but aren't they getting that from the sales boost they will likely get from a good mod? It's murky at this point.

They get their cut by the sales, specially considering modability is a feature with selling potential

 

[Metzhara]

I think it's easy for Gabe to make this statement, but difficult to prove in some regards.
How do you PROVE that a game was purchased because some mod made it more interesting to play? How do you know that of 5 people picking up a title, 3 did so because of some quirky mod they were interested in? You could ask them sure, but are they even aware of some of the nuances of their wants? An age long debate anywhere else outside of games, that's for certain.
Just because a mod is purchased/used doesn't mean that was the sole factor to picking up the title, or even a motivating one.

I think the idea is sound, but until humanity learns to be unbiased and communicate their intentions clearly, there's just no way you can prove any of this. It ultimately falls into theoretical territory and no way will be found that "justly" awards people. Even that in and of itself becomes somewhat difficult to argue. A "mod donation page" just seems like the best choice in the current climate. ("Pay X and add X for mod donations" which then AUTO divides it up between mods you use most commonly AND mods you vote to use.)

 

[Usobuko]

Valve just want to profit from mods.

Monetized and automated preferably.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Its funny how Gabe, as much as I respect the guy, thinks modders arent compensated, but its totally okay for them to have a translation plattform on Steam itself where people translate Steam stuff for free....

 

[breadtruck]

Valve just want to profit from mods.

Unfortunately this is what I first thought also