Seriously people read up about Creation Club or watch below video from TB. Its not paid mods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hLmM6pK0wg
Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, it could have a positive impact in that way, but it would probably be pretty marginal. You characterize it kind of like Bethesda is being strong-armed into improving, but they control the terms modders are contracted under to begin with, so I don't think that's the best description, but I get your meaning. I don't think it's much of a factor to hold up as a major positive for this initiative, but I guess it's something.
While the Discussion around Creation Club isn't exactly the same as a discussion around paid mods, even if they do have some arguments in common and they can have a very big impact on each other ( positive and/or negative ).
There is always two sides to a coin, while Creation Club success can lead to Tool enhancement, it can also very well lead to tools getting locked behind the Creation Club as they get to see mods as a direct competition for their Creation Club dlc/mods.
Unlikely for fallout/skyrim, but that kind of thinking could come up when it comes to their next games; I can already see them putting a positive spin to it and say that they will only release the modding tool when they are 'mature enough thanks to the feedback they get from the creators of the Creation Club'.
Is this unfair? It is obvious enough why hobbyist endeavours based on sharing and support and reciprocity would be viewed with disgust by the corporate world. That some already viewed modding as the basis for building a portfolio was probably already undermining this, and making the mod scene seem like a less exploitative (and less rewarding--I could be wrong, but I don't think anybody's getting laid off mods) version of college sports. But the manner in which monetization will attract opportunists is going to be obvious enough. Should a small studio risk and invest in creating its own IP and reaping greater rewards, or just make mods? And this is totally setting aside the aspect of modding which completely disregards copyright law and mashes franchises together just because it gives them joy/amuses them, and they wish to share this.
The thing is that they don't need to completely open the Creation Club gate to everyone for them to see free mods as a direct competition with the Creation Club. Based on their presentation it will have small things like new weapons or armor, which is something people can get in huge amount for free with mods.I still think they see value in free mods and because Creation Club is not automated platform (cant be) and will require full stuff to maintain, i dont think they would want to flood it with small or poor quality mods.
That's only one possibility out of many ( some could be positive one like tools improvement you cited ), my other example was just about them delaying modding tool so that the Creation Club wouldn't have competition for a given time. There is other posibilites like crippled modding tools to make the creation comparatively more attractive.Removing full mod functionality would be really radical for them. It can happen, but i dont think it will.
The thing is that they don't need to completely open the Creation Club gate to everyone for them to see free mods as a direct competition with the Creation Club. Based on their presentation it will have small things like new weapons or armor, which is something people can get in huge amount for free with mods.
I'm not saying it will happen, but that it might, even if it's not really a "fair" comparison ( since it's not the result of official modding tools ) we just saw how Take Two reacted to modding once they perceived it as a competition with GTA Online.
That's only one possibility out of many ( some could be positive one like tools improvement you cited ), my other example was just about them delaying modding tool so that the Creation Club wouldn't have competition for a given time. There is other posibilites like crippled modding tools to make the creation comparatively more attractive.
This is bullshit.Yes.
Modding is work done by fans out of love for a game.
Is this unfair? It is obvious enough why hobbyist endeavours based on sharing and support and reciprocity would be viewed with disgust by the corporate world. That some already viewed modding as the basis for building a portfolio was probably already undermining this, and making the mod scene seem like a less exploitative (and less rewarding--I could be wrong, but I don't think anybody's getting laid off mods) version of college sports. But the manner in which monetization will attract opportunists is going to be obvious enough. Should a small studio risk and invest in creating its own IP and reaping greater rewards, or just make mods? And this is totally setting aside the aspect of modding which completely disregards copyright law and mashes franchises together just because it gives them joy/amuses them, and they wish to share this.
This is bullshit.
Reminds me of when I asked the Executive Chef at an old job, for a raise, and his response was, "I thought you cooked because you love the art, and it's not about the money?"
Talented artists deserve to get paid.
I have no faith whatsoever that paid and free mods can coexist with content tags and company approval, companies will never allow free versions to sit right beside what they're charging.Not at all. As long as free mods aren't blocked to only use a paid service and there is a system in place to check for stolen code/assets, then its fine.
Agreed 100%.Modders asking for money is fine. I've donated to some Fallout NV modders because I liked their work, but Bethesda trying to drain their fans for the communities' own creations is incredibly scummy and worthy of derision.
Not much we can do about it though. Remember the outrage about Horse Armor DLC? So much for that, the entire gaming industry is now on an entirely new level of wringing money out of their consumers pockets, something that 2006 Bethesda could only have dreamed about. I expect they'll get away with it this time and in 5 years we'll be happily paying for mods and patches that we used to get for free, and only a fraction of it will actually go to the people who created them.
What...? Big name MMO server issues only happens during the launch/expansion/popular event launch and it only happens for a few days at most, where as mod incompatibilities happen every day and modding communities have specific sections for them. FF14, WoW, GW2, etc don't have server issues daily unlike mods.So common but still not common? Which is it? Server failure rate during launch weeks is the norm in my experience. it may be a bit of an exaggeration but I'd say the occurrence rate is 99%. You're telling me mod incompatibility is higher than 99%? And this justifies being against paid mods?
Okay, and again that's you. As I said before people don't want to pay money for programs that don't work or are buggy which is why the PC community have created PCGamingWiki, PC performance threads, and bad ports get a major bad rap when ever one gets released. There's a public outcry for this, because as I said before, it costs money.Anytime I buy a piece of software I open myself to the risk of failure/incompatibility; that's just reality. I'm not opposed to paying for software even though that risk exists universally. Only the simplest of self-contained programs always "play nice" with your other programs. And sometimes not even then.