-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Modder (featured in yesterday's paid bundle) decides to exit Workshop and maybe Nexus
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
So just to clarify, the Art of the Catch mod didn't actually include any assets from the other mod? Only had set itself up to use take advantage of it if the other mod was installed?
Because by the way Kotaku and Destructoid made it sound, it sounded like Art of the Catch specifically stole assets.
Because by the way Kotaku and Destructoid made it sound, it sounded like Art of the Catch specifically stole assets.
The situation is way more muddied than that. I think the mainstream outlets intentionally distorted the situation to better suit the narrative as sensationalist media tends to do and he was needlessly villified. The whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Horsemama1956
Member
This guy sounds like a huge whiny baby. He fucked up, just deal with it.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I think everyone can agree that this whole fiasco shows that Valve jumped the gun and didn't think it all the way through. It illustrates a larger issue in their inability to curate or conduct proper QA. I think Valve should focus on solving its current issues with their services before they introduce more.
Facism
Member
even 8 months before half-life 2. You had split CS and NS communities, some on WON and some on steam. Horrible times.
fastballspecial
Member
I knew that this entire scenario was a train wreck waiting to happen the second I saw the topic yesterday or the day before.
timetokill
Banned
Money tends to do that.
It is only a violation if actual code from FNIS was used or distributed with Art of the Catch.
If Art of the Catch simply works with FNIS and performs better if someone also installed FNIS separately, than the author of FNIS has no leg to stand on.
If it is just the fact that the two are compatible, there is no moral issue. So long as Art of the Catch doesn't reuse lines of code from FNIS or distribute it, then it's in the clear.
Pretty much this. There's no patent issue at play. If someone makes compatible software, you can't really stop them.
Amazon did that once.
There was a shitstorm. Amazon hasn't made that mistake again.
Items are removed from the store (no longer available for purchase), but if you own it you own it.
What's said is that he made his mod compatible with another if it was also installed. Not that her distributed copyrighted files. The rights of the consumer are paramount.
You can't just sell something and then take it back.
Removing something from customer libraries after purchase would be 100% anti-consumer.
Nope. Not his "right" (morally or legally) at all.
TheDarkBites
Banned
Man, you're not kidding. I just wonder what a dev's argument would be for this type of thing. Do the devs even have a say in how their game is changed for monetized gain? Like, it's their game being added to, and some Joe Schmo can add a pallet swap to it and get paid for it.
Must admit that's odd to me. If I was a modder, making a little bit of money from my hobby would be great. And as a player of games, I'd be willing to pay something for some well made mods.
The game maker taking 50% seems excessive though, even if mods are build on their game.
The guy tries to get into bed with Valve/Bethesda to make money, fails and now throws a tantrum ... big deal.
You don't have to like the whole paid mods thing, but it's beyond naive to believe that Valve would keep the mods up without having the rights to it. "But but it's my content ..." lol. Curious what the contract looks like.
You don't have to like the whole paid mods thing, but it's beyond naive to believe that Valve would keep the mods up without having the rights to it. "But but it's my content ..." lol. Curious what the contract looks like.
The fuck? How did you get that out of what was posted? It's clear that he was the first to step in the legal grey area minefield of this terribly executed idea. This is going to happen to more modders, and the community will be pretty clearly divided into camps that refuse to share assets with each other because there's now money on the line.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
The thing is, people WANT modders to make money. They just don't want Valve/Publisher to take 75% of it.
Stallion Dan
Member
He said he wants to refund everyone and remove the mod, Valve are blocking him from doing that.
Why are people saying the mod should stay for people who bought it? Are you missing the refund part?
Why are people saying the mod should stay for people who bought it? Are you missing the refund part?
uncredited male
Member
This is why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle#Criticism
It is anti-consumer to the point that companies would rather settle than risk a legal ruling.
family_guy
Member
So lesson learned here is to make sure you fully understand what you're getting yourself into and to probably seek legal counsel before you do anything.
Stallion Dan
Member
Sounds like the Wii U Arkham Origins season pass pull/refund. Seems WB/Nintendo were fine with it,
This is what I feared most. Money pits modder against other modder. Turning the whole community bitter in the process. Especially when big corps stand behind it.
I don't think even donation button on steam workshop can save it anymore. Not with current share condition at least.
I don't think even donation button on steam workshop can save it anymore. Not with current share condition at least.
I am still confused why Valve thinks this is any sort of good idea.
Elderscrolls mods in particular have always been so interlocked with other mods and things. Some to such a point they're a technical mess to sort out. Maybe if they limited it to strictly vanilia toolset & reskinned stuff.
Elderscrolls mods in particular have always been so interlocked with other mods and things. Some to such a point they're a technical mess to sort out. Maybe if they limited it to strictly vanilia toolset & reskinned stuff.
uncredited male
Member
That is actually completely different and kind of proves the point about why Amazon backed off.
They didn't pull content that was already released. They let the users keep what was already out.
Other than the fact that a lot of people would be unhappy if you forced a refund for a perfectly fine product, there are also 3 parties that got paid here. Valve and Bethseda aren't going to want to give refunds if there's no real legal reason. 75% of the money is not his to refund.
Absolutely. The first time I read the news thread, it instantly popped up to my mind that this shit will fracture the community. Good job Bethesda for cementing my stance even further to not any of your future shit again.
Such a shame too, because modders work hard (some of them). And a lot of times add a ton of life to games that are very old. It would be lovely if they could get some sort of compensation for all that work they do.
But greed and money in general is going to fuck that up. This isn't a utopia, and some things are really just too good to be true.
But greed and money in general is going to fuck that up. This isn't a utopia, and some things are really just too good to be true.
Because he shouldn't have the right to force a refund and a deletion of the already downloaded digital files.
NotoriousPUG
Member
You aren't. It's just a giant game of "jump to conclusions."
NotoriousPUG
Member
Because he made a big scene about leaving the modding scene even though his mod isn't being sold anymore, like he wanted, and the other modder and him are "cool" according to him. He's upset he can't take back content that people bought.
Astral/H3X
Member
Can I preorder your mod? It won't be for a week, but I absolutely love the work you've done, and it sounds like you guys could use it.
Hell, just tossing that grenade alone is worth whatever price you guys want for it.
Quadraphonic
Member
Keeping content up when one or more of the parties disagrees about the distribution of the product is a huge problem.
Granted, he can release an update that neuters it lacking NFIS, and then take it down, but as a creator of games, it sucks to lose control over something and have a company say "Hey, you get 1/4 of whatever you charge for this, and if shit goes wrong, we're in control now."
It's already been sold. Unless the entire service is taken offline there is no excuse to remove it (and even then companies have often found ways to ensure customers keep their stuff).
What you're doing is justifying the COMPLETE removal of a game at the whim of a publisher or licensee.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that Microsoft or Sony should have the right to completely delete a game from their service (or that any publisher should be allowed to do so).
De-listing games so that they can no longer be purchased? Fine.
Deleting games from the server and removing them from player's collections? Unacceptable outside of very extreme circumstances.
NotoriousPUG
Member
The content isn't up. No one can purchase it. It is literally only there as support to people who purchased it before the content creator made this decision. It's on the same level as allowing users to have continued access to their games even after a publisher no longer sells the game or a deal has ended, etc.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Is there a reason you guys haven't setup a donation link?
Also I couldn't imagine if you guys sold the software to people and then the OVR problem came up. its not your guys fault they decided to do that though
I can see this situation setting a precedent for how the community acts moving forward. All the modders who are so staunchly against selling mods that they want nothing to do with people who do (I'm looking at the SkyUI situation and seeing a lot of that) will immediately change their licenses so paid modders can't interface with their content.
Unless you're holding a patent, there is no easy way to do that.
In the US, it is perfectly legal to write a piece of paid software that interacts with a piece of free software, so long as the free software is not distributed without permission.
You can even commit copyright infringement under fair use if it is required for compatibility functionality.
See: SEGA vs Accolade
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
I don't think that case holds as much weight here as you think it does.
What does
Functional principles of computer software mean? You can't protect against someone reverse engineering regular code, but created intellectual property including textures and the like wouldn't be covered.
Right. Textures are art assets and would be covered under copyright.
So if Mod A copied textures from Mod B and included them in its distribution package, that would be infringement.
But to use the Art of the Catch example, assuming it is true that it does not use any of the FNIS code direct, but just interacts with it if it is also installed, there is no way to prohibit that.
In this case, Mod A isn't directly incorporating anything from Mod B. But if Mod B is installed, Mod A is interacting with it to produce better animations. The author of Mod B might not like it, but there's not much to be done.
The infringement I was talking about in the post would be if Mod B required a config file named, say, MODB.INI with specific text inside it, for another piece of software to interact with it. In that case, Mod A could create such a file and distribute it as part of Mod A because it is a pure functionality requirement.