Trojan
Member
The tears from this modder taste so good. Today was a great day for PC gaming.
I can't hear the actual discussion going on over the deafening sound of you grinding your axe.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Paid Skyrim mods being removed from Steam
- Thread starter Archie
- Start date
I can't hear the actual discussion going on over the deafening sound of you grinding your axe.
Springfoot
Member
This is the data I had found a while back. They list PC sales at 14% - it may be based on dollars of revenue rather than units sold, which would track since the PC versions often drop in price or have huge deals much earlier than the console versions.
Haha, this actually cracked me up, and I love the little flair at end
JudgmentJay
Member
I'm glad.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
The tears from this modder taste so good. Today was a great day for PC gaming.
guaranteed replies thread on /v/
doubt he ever made a mod
https://www.reddit.com/r/skyrimmods/comments/33qcaj/the_experiment_has_failed_my_exit_from_the/
"It wasn't Valve, it was his contact that happens to work for Valve full-time"
Okay.
You can check for that stuff, but they didn't even bother to do it. They had apparently been working on this since 2012 and they failed to check for that stuff right out of the gate. Why should I believe they'd do it consistently when there are tens of thousands of mods on the paid Workshop, and more going up every day?
Scrooge McDuck
Member
I read this earlier in this thread:
If that's "tons of donations," then that's really sad.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
So what are the pilot program mod makers doing now? Like the Wet and Cold guy, eating crow and making it free again or taking it down altogether?
Vallen Valiant
Banned
What did you think I have been doing? I have been screaming at Bethesda the entire time, I never screamed at modders. Bethesda was going to get 30% cut out of the paid mods, and I screamed at that. At what point are we disagreeing?
IcyRhythms
Member
LurkerPrime
Member
No, of course not. It's 3/4 of a great day for PC gaming.
MrCunningham
Member
I'm still on the fence with this one. On one hand, I was not opposed to the idea of modders making money off their work. On the other hand, some of the paid mods can be a bit sketchy.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I do hope Valve puts a donate button on mods. It's the next logical step here.
Scrooge McDuck
Member
Better than nothing when they claim it's just for fun
You talk about respect, but it seems like you never respect them to begin with.
ZoltanXerxes
Member
Kudos to Valve for doing this. Mass respect.
No company ever checks for DMCA issues in their store. It's up to the entity that owns the copyright to file a complaint. Usualyl how this happens is someone says, " Hey, man, this seems like thing that you made." and then you go "HEY WHAT THE FUCK THIS IS MY THING. VALVO PLS." and then they say, "Yeah, bro, you're right. We'll take care of this shit for you." and then down it comes and the thief is banned and doesn't get the money.
Valve isn't the copyright police.
You just said that you are owed free mods to fix your game. That's what you're saying. Yes, you want to force people to work for free. Just look at what you yourself wrote.
Also, the mods are not PC only. There's mods for both the PS3 and 360 versions.
Again, just read what you say. You say that you are owed people fixing the game for you for free. You're not screaming at Bethesda, you're screaming at modders demaning them to work for you.
IcyRhythms
Member
I have donated, guy. Anyway, it's a great day for PC gaming. Feels good. Gonna go play some KF2
You have source for this?
SkyUI modder just said people don't donate.
You don't want modders to be paid for their effort? :/
Vallen Valiant
Banned
If it was going to work, Valve/ Bethesda would need to make sure every paid mod meet minimum standards of quality. That is what the IP licensing is suppose to involve. That's what the 30% cut to Bethesda is suppose to be for.
I am owed free mods from Bethesda. Frankly I even expect Bethesda to just outright pay the SkyUI creator for every download. That's what I am demanding. The fact that Bethesda won't do it is another matter.
Modding not being monetized = a great day for PC gaming.
Developers submitting curated works ala TF2 hats and then getting paid to release 'community DLC' (because it ceases to be a mod once it is behind a pay-wall) would have been the preferred approach. Modding and paid game development are two different things with (super fucking obvious) differences. Shame on Valve and Bethesda for not understanding this.
Many people (myself included) found Vanilla Skyrim pale in comparison to what was possible with mods. It's reception, particularly after it was out for a while, was really mixed.
I'm not sure how I feel about this news. On one hand, there was a serious potential for turning part of the mod community into a horse-armour-esque wasteland. On the other, this could lead to good things, like larger mods with actual budgets behind them. I agree that the TES community wasn't a good place for valve, with their massive market share, to experiment on. I would still like to see this type of monetization explored, but hopefully in a community less likely to be damaged by it.
Also, I don't really see why the 25% cut is coming as such a surprise. Yeah its bullshit, but this is a world where publishers almost always take more than 50% of the profits. Of course, in this case Bethsoft and Valve are providing services that they offered for free anyways, so its even more bullshit. But still, not surprising in the least.
Later Alligator
Member
I still dont see what people what people were up in arms over, but good job I guess?
Some things worth addressing:
1. Copyright infringement
This is probably the most legitimate concern, but also easily dealt with.
The way Skyrim handles mod data makes policing intellectual property rights difficult. The same may be true of other games. However, the issue is easily resolved with the use of locked archives. For example, Crytek has used this type of feature since the original Crysis.
A mod that combines multiple texture overhauls or scripts would not present a problem if its discrete components can be recognized as locked mods requiring separate payment to the respective authors.
Of course, there is the usual risk of hacking and stealing, but that's adequately offset by Valve's other enforcement mechanisms (e.g. termination of accounts, deletion of the offending file).
So yeah, Valve made a smart decision to delay implementation of paid mods.
2. Publisher abuse / super-monetization
I'm not entirely sure what people are trying to claim with this argument, but I think it boils down to this: if publishers can monetize mods, they'll just release half-finished games with little content.
Although a strong argument exists that publishers may exploit the good-will of a talented modding community, most people judge a game as it is. A shoddy game without much content won't have much modding potential, and modders won't typically be interested in saving it.
In the hypothetical scenario that a developer, say DICE, releases a game full of incredible assets, good editor tools, but no actual levels or plot, then there may be greater potential for so-called abuse. But in that situation the developer is making a deliberate trade-off: risking loss of short term appeal for long term viability. Nothing is inherently wrong with such a model.
3. Rip-off mods / "it should be free"
People who download mods are fairly savvy when it comes to judging quality. Moreover, no evidence exists in the real world that a price-tag, by itself, makes customers act unreasonably. Read reviews, watch demonstration videos. You'll survive.
The argument that certain cosmetic improvements should be free is an opinion. If you think certain enhancements should be free of charge, take that up with the individual modder, not with Valve or the publisher. Better yet, make your own mod and make it free.
4. Unfair profit sharing
The only relevant question raised by this concern is whether a low payout actually reduces the quality or variety of mods. I don't know of any economic principle that would predict such an effect given the status quo of no payouts. I think the more likely scenario is that we will see more mods and more mods of higher quality.
As someone who creates mods for free and doesn't solicit donations, I don't really care what my cut will be. I mod for fun. I will continue to release mods for free. I don't have the time to release fit-for-payment mods. But there are people who do have the time.
For people between jobs, in school, or otherwise inclined to demonstrate their talents, payment is a strong incentive to put in extra effort. Forget about re-skins of weapons; think new 3d models, animations, particle effects (provided that tools can support these things).
I find it interesting how so many of the complaints against unfair profit division seem to originate not from modders but from consumers. Perhaps the latter are legitimately concerned that hobbyists are getting a bad deal. But it's an academic concern. The viability of paid mods doesn't depend on consumer consent, it depends on modder consent. It costs Valve and the publisher very little to host a platform for premium content, while both stand to profit handsomely from a few, exceptional mods.
1. Copyright infringement
This is probably the most legitimate concern, but also easily dealt with.
The way Skyrim handles mod data makes policing intellectual property rights difficult. The same may be true of other games. However, the issue is easily resolved with the use of locked archives. For example, Crytek has used this type of feature since the original Crysis.
A mod that combines multiple texture overhauls or scripts would not present a problem if its discrete components can be recognized as locked mods requiring separate payment to the respective authors.
Of course, there is the usual risk of hacking and stealing, but that's adequately offset by Valve's other enforcement mechanisms (e.g. termination of accounts, deletion of the offending file).
So yeah, Valve made a smart decision to delay implementation of paid mods.
2. Publisher abuse / super-monetization
I'm not entirely sure what people are trying to claim with this argument, but I think it boils down to this: if publishers can monetize mods, they'll just release half-finished games with little content.
Although a strong argument exists that publishers may exploit the good-will of a talented modding community, most people judge a game as it is. A shoddy game without much content won't have much modding potential, and modders won't typically be interested in saving it.
In the hypothetical scenario that a developer, say DICE, releases a game full of incredible assets, good editor tools, but no actual levels or plot, then there may be greater potential for so-called abuse. But in that situation the developer is making a deliberate trade-off: risking loss of short term appeal for long term viability. Nothing is inherently wrong with such a model.
3. Rip-off mods / "it should be free"
People who download mods are fairly savvy when it comes to judging quality. Moreover, no evidence exists in the real world that a price-tag, by itself, makes customers act unreasonably. Read reviews, watch demonstration videos. You'll survive.
The argument that certain cosmetic improvements should be free is an opinion. If you think certain enhancements should be free of charge, take that up with the individual modder, not with Valve or the publisher. Better yet, make your own mod and make it free.
4. Unfair profit sharing
The only relevant question raised by this concern is whether a low payout actually reduces the quality or variety of mods. I don't know of any economic principle that would predict such an effect given the status quo of no payouts. I think the more likely scenario is that we will see more mods and more mods of higher quality.
As someone who creates mods for free and doesn't solicit donations, I don't really care what my cut will be. I mod for fun. I will continue to release mods for free. I don't have the time to release fit-for-payment mods. But there are people who do have the time.
For people between jobs, in school, or otherwise inclined to demonstrate their talents, payment is a strong incentive to put in extra effort. Forget about re-skins of weapons; think new 3d models, animations, particle effects (provided that tools can support these things).
I find it interesting how so many of the complaints against unfair profit division seem to originate not from modders but from consumers. Perhaps the latter are legitimately concerned that hobbyists are getting a bad deal. But it's an academic concern. The viability of paid mods doesn't depend on consumer consent, it depends on modder consent. It costs Valve and the publisher very little to host a platform for premium content, while both stand to profit handsomely from a few, exceptional mods.
Aesius
Member
This has probably been posted already, but as a happy medium, what if Valve charged a one-time fee to access the Workshop (maybe $20-$30), and then after you get behind the paywall you're free to download as many mods as you want.
Valve/Bethesda can then use that money and give payouts based on certain benchmarks for mod creators (highest rated/downloaded mods of the year/month or however they go about it).
Basically they could let the cream rise to the top and reward the modders who put in major work and are innovative and dedicated to their creations. Talented modders get money while those who steal ideas or churn out crap get nothing.
Valve/Bethesda can then use that money and give payouts based on certain benchmarks for mod creators (highest rated/downloaded mods of the year/month or however they go about it).
Basically they could let the cream rise to the top and reward the modders who put in major work and are innovative and dedicated to their creations. Talented modders get money while those who steal ideas or churn out crap get nothing.
Nocturno999
Member
And I doubt it's going to work even on a new game.
People are going to reject paying for fixes that are supposed to be made by the devs.
This will encourage rewarding mediocrity to Bethesda in many ways.
The difference being curation and rename-to-DLC?
Vallen Valiant
Banned
Yep, that's where I stand. If it is going to be third party DLC, then turn it into third party DLC properly. I will pay for that.
Hell, I paid for the infamous horse armour. I am not against paying, but DLCs need some quality assurance.
well I thought about the thing. If I'm about to pay for mods, I must be guaranteed some things :
That the mod will not break in the next patch and that I can be assured a certain level of compatibility with other mods that don't overlap.
This basically means that the mods will need to be vetted and tested before they are released for the public. It's bullshit? I expect a certain minimum level of quality of what I pay for. Of course there is always some Games(Devs/Publisher... But that's not the point) that will release games buggy as fuck.
Ask Gamers to Beta Test some mods if you need to, ''Early Access Mods'', hire a QA team only for mods I don't know.
Just don't try to take what is already pre established and stamp money on it next time.
Well, I hope.
That the mod will not break in the next patch and that I can be assured a certain level of compatibility with other mods that don't overlap.
This basically means that the mods will need to be vetted and tested before they are released for the public. It's bullshit? I expect a certain minimum level of quality of what I pay for. Of course there is always some Games(Devs/Publisher... But that's not the point) that will release games buggy as fuck.
Ask Gamers to Beta Test some mods if you need to, ''Early Access Mods'', hire a QA team only for mods I don't know.
Just don't try to take what is already pre established and stamp money on it next time.
Well, I hope.
Pretty much yes including consumer perception. Obviously, one of the primary reasons Valve even took this action (removing the paid mods) is because they sought to redefine what a mod is and a very vocal consumer base disagrees with that.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
Glad they pulled out. This would have been a legal nightmare, and a customer service nightmare.
- People paying for a product that could break further down the line that could potentially never get fixed, lots of legal consumer rights shit going on there.
- Legal repercussions for valve and users charging for mods with copyrighted content, or other peoples mods without their permission.
We even had one of these issues already only less than a week of the paid mod program coming out of the gate. Valve's lack of ownership research into even their debut products on the program reeks of the lack of care and attention they've shown with greenlight and early access as well. QA and standards would have to be set for this thing, and it's blatantly obvious Valve didn't even have the foresight to even do that.
- People paying for a product that could break further down the line that could potentially never get fixed, lots of legal consumer rights shit going on there.
- Legal repercussions for valve and users charging for mods with copyrighted content, or other peoples mods without their permission.
We even had one of these issues already only less than a week of the paid mod program coming out of the gate. Valve's lack of ownership research into even their debut products on the program reeks of the lack of care and attention they've shown with greenlight and early access as well. QA and standards would have to be set for this thing, and it's blatantly obvious Valve didn't even have the foresight to even do that.
PedroLumpy
Member
Yep, here we all are. A bunch of people using mods for free, telling modders to shut up and be happy with their donation button. Telling creators they shouldn't have the option to sell something people want. Wow, what a close call that was there for a sec. PC gaming saved.
See you all in a year I guess when this rolls back around.
See you all in a year I guess when this rolls back around.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
ROUND 2! FIGHT!
And you don't see why this would be stupid to introduce into an arena where the status quo for YEARS was that everything was shared openly with the understanding that the shared content was not used for profit?
stan423321
Member
So the dependency quote it is. It's about modding the mod, not picking the contents up. Still pretty problematic, but a different thing.
In that case, it's not much of a difference.
Curation in Valve's model is targetted to be community-driven, unless you're against the concept of community-driven policing and want Valve to be more heavy-handed.
Modders not paid for their effort = The Norm. This is a hobby to improve a game they love. Nobody forces them to do it, nobody goes into modding expecting to get paid, and if you do, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.
At best, your mod is exceptional and you can put it on your resume when applying for a real job in the industry, or a game company takes note of your work and offers you a job. Expecting to get paid for a hobby is fine if there was some precedent for it, DoTA/TF2 aside.
Hell I don't even care if people make money from mods, but suddenly throwing a half-assed monetization system into a game that's 4 years old (in a series that's over 20) that has had a thriving community of free mods up till this point is the wrong way to go.
Vallen Valiant
Banned
Community drive policing only works when there is no money involved. When there is money involved then actual LAWS get involved, and that means REAL police and REAL lawyers. Valve curate their own games, but in the case of Skyrim Valve did not.
There is a reason for that. It is a well establish phenomena that the increase between $1 and $2 is just 1 dollar. But the increase between Free and $1 is NOT 1 dollar; it is near infinity. This is because free things are not free, free things generate good will that essentially create negative costs. To charge even 1 dollar means a massive increase in the "cost". You don't have to agree with this, but this is well known in economics and something that happens. This is how humans work.
All of the sources we have seen have pointed to near negligible levels of donations.
AKA "you don't deserve be paid for your hard work, it is reward in itself"
How are lawyers and police suddenly involved?
We're talking something like community reviews and recommendations here.
MrCunningham
Member
The only real standard that has to be met is whether or not the mod will work in the game. But even then, there are other factors that needs to be considered as well, like if mods will play nice with each other or won't be broken on future updates. Though I doubt they update the game much anymore.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
Ding! Correct! When you make something a paid product it better fucking work a looong time after it's been purchased. A 24 hour money back system is pathetic for something as complex as modding in the long term.
darkwing-buck
Member
dang, means I missed out on this amazing deal
More like "if you consider this work instead of a hobby you're better off spending your time elsewhere".
RipperGrim
Member
Well I can't say I'm sad to see this go, paying for mods would have kinda sucked, it would change the way mods work I think, where all the best ones would basically become like any other DLC and that in my opinion is kinda destroying one of the reasons why mods are awesome, I just always assumed people modded games as a hobby or ways to improve the game and share it for the community, to charge for it and have modders motivated by cash would change the nature of it.
Also there's the very big issue of quality control, there are mods that just get accepted because they are free, if we're going to spend money on mods then they need to be at the level of paid dlc which for like 90% of mods out there is not true.
Best bet for modders I rate if they aren't doing it as a hobby and want to make money is do what others have done and use it as part of your CV to get jobs that appreciate that kind of talent.
This just made me wonder what would have happened if people were charging for the kind of mods that add characters from other games and movies. I seriously doubt they could have charged for a mod that allows you to play as Batman.
Also there's the very big issue of quality control, there are mods that just get accepted because they are free, if we're going to spend money on mods then they need to be at the level of paid dlc which for like 90% of mods out there is not true.
Best bet for modders I rate if they aren't doing it as a hobby and want to make money is do what others have done and use it as part of your CV to get jobs that appreciate that kind of talent.
This just made me wonder what would have happened if people were charging for the kind of mods that add characters from other games and movies. I seriously doubt they could have charged for a mod that allows you to play as Batman.
I H8 Memes
Member
While there could be great benefits to paid mods (imagine a Fallout 4 mod from Obsidian) the risk of damaging the traditional mod system were too great.
There are plenty of avenues to make money making small time games and software without tampering with the mod ecosystem to do it.
There are plenty of avenues to make money making small time games and software without tampering with the mod ecosystem to do it.