Support NeoGAF

[Pacotera]

Wasnt expecting this so soon... but nice that they were at least honest about it

 

[U-R]

Glad to see Valve noticed how terrible the implementation of this was. Eventually a way to monetize paid mods will come to be, 75% revenue stealing says so, but hopefully not in a way that encourage rapacious exploitation.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Well thankfully we live in a market economy where the viability of earning money from these things is not determined by the kind of mindset you have. People have been able to make money from modifying and creating content for plenty of different games for many years now, and status quos have been given time to be established in those markets over what people are willing to pay for and how much.

What mods?

I used to make mods for Max Payne 2. I've used mods for a lot of different games over the years, never paid for one. I may have encountered one or two over the years, maybe for a total conversion for a shooter, I can't remember.

Modders are hobbyists. They're not professionals. They already usually deal with grief from people who run into issues using their mods, and that's for a free download. Steam is incapable of providing customer support, how in the world is a home hobbyist supposed to deal with irate buyers (or worse, some kind of copyright infringement claim)?

The whole scenario is dysfunctional, mostly because the idea itself doesn't meet the spirit of what modding is about.

 

[Hendrick's]

As long as they can still charge for hats...

 

[Hero Prinny]

What mods?

Off the top of my head, day z and killing floor.

 

[Sijil]

What mods?

I used to make mods for Max Payne 2. I've used mods for a lot of different games over the years, never paid for one. I may have encountered one or two over the years, maybe for a total conversion for a shooter, I can't remember.

Modders are hobbyists. They're not professionals. They already usually deal with grief from people who run into issues using their mods, and that's for a free download. Steam is incapable of providing customer support, how in the world is a home hobbyist supposed to deal with irate buyers (or worse, some kind of copyright infringement claim)?

The whole scenario is dysfunctional, mostly because the idea itself doesn't meet the spirit of what modding is about.

CSGO, TF2 and Dota 2 have thriving modding communities who are getting paid for their mods. The thinking was to implement the same concept with Skyrim.

Off the top of my head, day z and killing floor.

Natural Selection too started off as a mod, there's Black Mesa Souce which isgoing to be sold on Steam.

 

[Renekton]

Modders are hobbyists. They're not professionals.

Do you decide for them or will you let them have a choice what they want to be?

 

[Vallen Valiant]

CSGO, TF2 and Dota 2 have thriving moddong communities who are getting paid for their mods. The thinking was to implement the same concept with Skyrim.




Natural Selection too started off as a mod, there's Black Mesa Souce which going to be sold on Steam.

Majority of your example are just cosmetic and don't break the core game. And I am happy for Black Mesa to be sold on Steam, because clearly it IS quality-checked. Note that there is nothing wrong with turning mods into full games; but that doesn't mean all of a sudden you are going to let the paid mods flood the marketplace with no QA whatsoever.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Off the top of my head, day z and killing floor.

That's not exactly a UI, texture pack, quest, etc. Those are total conversions.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

How much QA and post-purchase support do you think is necessary for your high-res horse genitalia mods?

 

[Renekton]

but that doesn't mean all of a sudden you are going to let the paid mods flood the marketplace with no QA whatsoever.

I take it you don't have much faith in community-driven curation and try-before-buy or refund?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Shame the damage to the modding community won't be undone simply by Valve's backpedaling. As I've said before this whole scenario highlights how daft Valve is when it comes to planning things. They messed it up with Greenlight, then messed it up again with Early Access, and continued the trend into paid mods. I think the idea of paying mod creators is a good one, but it needs very careful planning and considerations, and processes to prevent abuse (from all parties) that Valve doesn't seem willing to invest. Hopefully they'll spend some actual time at the drawing board before trying it again.

 

[SparkTR]

Somewhere, there's a more thoughtful way to monetize mods and give content creators more incentive and time to develop their software. Throwing a paywall in the middle of an established mod community out of nowhere was not thoughtful in the slightest.

 

[funkystudent]

I fully expect this to be implemented into the next Bethesda RPG on day 1 of workshop support.

Maybe that will stop some of the issues early on since the community / way of things wont have had solidified yet for the new game.


Also it wouldn't hurt to create a few basic rules like if you released a mod for free you cant decide later to put it behind a paywall and spam previous installers with pop ups in game to buy the paid verison.

 

[Compsiox]

I fully expect this to be implemented into the next Bethesda RPG on day 1 of workshop support.

Maybe that will stop some of the issues early on since the community / way of things wont have had solidified yet for the new game.


Also it wouldn't hurt to create a few basic rules like if you released a mod for free you cant decide later to put it behind a paywall and spam previous installers with pop ups in game to buy the paid verison.

Fallout 4 won't even be a game. It will just be an engine filled with premade environments and characters. The modders do the rest.

 

[lazygecko]

What mods?

I used to make mods for Max Payne 2. I've used mods for a lot of different games over the years, never paid for one. I may have encountered one or two over the years, maybe for a total conversion for a shooter, I can't remember.

Modders are hobbyists. They're not professionals. They already usually deal with grief from people who run into issues using their mods, and that's for a free download. Steam is incapable of providing customer support, how in the world is a home hobbyist supposed to deal with irate buyers (or worse, some kind of copyright infringement claim)?

The whole scenario is dysfunctional, mostly because the idea itself doesn't meet the spirit of what modding is about.

Mods have been sold commercially and sanctioned by the developers as far back as Quake 1. Malice for Quake is one example. Tactical Ops for Unreal Tournament is another. Then there's stuff like Second Life and super hardcore flight simulator games and such that have their own markets for user-created content like Valve's games. Starcraft 2 I believe also supports selling stuff like custom game modes, and the same principle is planned for Everquest Next/Landmark (they stated specifically that they want to have an ecosystem where something like DotA can happen and be monetized from the start).

The modular nature of Skyrim is obviously very different to all of these, but that doesn't mean that the inherent problems cannot be solved or at least mitgated to manageable levels. I don't see how it in any real way counters the "spirit" of modding.

 

[CyclopsRock]

They're not even clearing the low bar set up by mobile ecosystems though.

Apple, for instance, doesn't just let you throw anything up on the iOS store, even though some of the crap on there may make you think that's the case.

They actually require you to meet lengthy guidelines on functionality and if you fail to meet them, they'll reject your App.

Similarly, Google has a system in place for Android Apps.

So far as I can find, Valve had no such process. In fact, they've got this gem on their FAQ;



So no, Valve was not approaching this remotely the same way.

I'm not experience at all in mobile development, but nothing on that Google page talks about enforcement. That looks like a guideline. There's plenty of useless shite in the Google Play store, and there's absolutely stuff which doesn't work on a ton of phones that'll let you buy it. But it's not actually a problem, because the good stuff floats to the top thanks to rankings, word of mouth etc. I think you're being very disengenuous by saying that "Valve was not approaching this remotely the same way."

Somewhere, there's a more thoughtful way to monetize mods and give content creators more incentive and time to develop their software. Throwing a paywall in the middle of an established mod community out of nowhere was not thoughtful in the slightest.

But it was the modders that put up the paywall?

 

[Rafterman]

Sanity prevails! You don't take a five year old game, with an established community, and turn into a cash grab.

 

[Nocturno999]

Fallout 4 won't even be a game. It will just be an engine filled with premade environments and characters. The modders do the rest.

That's why I think it will never work even after "careful planning".

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Mods have been sold commercially and sanctioned by the developers as far back as Quake 1. Malice for Quake is one example. Tactical Ops for Unreal Tournament is another. Then there's stuff like Second Life and super hardcore flight simulator games and such that have their own markets for user-created content like Valve's games. Starcraft 2 I believe also supports selling stuff like custom game modes, and the same principle is planned for Everquest Next/Landmark (they stated specifically that they want to have an ecosystem where something like DotA can happen and be monetized from the start).

The modular nature of Skyrim is obviously very different to all of these, but that doesn't mean that the inherent problems cannot be solved or at least mitgated to manageable levels. I don't see how it in any real way counters the "spirit" of modding.

We should really separate total conversions from the bulk of what make up modding, they're not really relevant in this context. Total conversion mods that are developed with the intent of making a releasable game is a very small part of modding.

Most mods are by hobbyists who want a feature, model or a fix implemented in a game they like to play, and TES/Fallout 3/NV modding is analogous to that spirit. Some quest mods or landscape total conversions approach the kind of scale that, if it's high enough quality, could be worth monetizing, but there are very few of those.

 

[foxbeldin]

I see only one way gamers could let it slide with paid mods :

Opt'in by mod devs. They either choose to make them payable, or free, or have a donate button. But if they want to make money out of it, it's not up to gamers to choose if they can try. Gamers can vote with their wallet on paid mods.

BUT : If the mod is paid for, then at least 90% of the money should go to the mod dev and not the shameful 25% that was planned.

Overall, i'm all for the donation system. It worked until now. (of course not in Bethesda's mind because they're not getting a dime on it)

 

[Vallen Valiant]

I take it you don't have much faith in community-driven curation and try-before-buy or refund?

When you add money, yo add fraud and scammers. Community driven curation only works when there is no incentive to break it for a profit. And the way it was done, Valve had not placed any external curation process whatsoever.

 

[Grief.exe]

I see only one way gamers could let it slide with paid mods :

Opt'in by mod devs. They either choose to make them payable, or free, or have a donate button. But if they want to make money out of it, it's not up to gamers to choose if they can try. Gamers can vote with their wallet on paid mods.

That's exactly how the system did work. There wasn't a donation button however, just a link to the developer's paypal or patreon.

When you add money, yo add fraud and scammers. Community driven curation only works when there is no incentive to break it for a profit. And the way it was done, Valve had not placed any external curation process whatsoever.

Modern Steam has run entirely without curation.

 

[Funyarinpa]

Hooray, people can't get paid for their time and effort anymore!

People that do want to pay can still do so via donations.

 

[JNT]

Too bad. Since when has hobby game modders thought they had a home business doing that? It's not even in the spirit of what the whole thing is about.

For some reason, everyone thinks everything we do in our free time for fun should be somehow putting money in the bank.

They are obviously creating value that they can't cash in on. If you could ask hobbyists if they would want to be able to make money off of their work I think it's pretty obvious which option most would pick. It is not for us to make that choice for others.

There was a market here. It's gone now.

 

[WanderingWind]

There really isn't a single good example of a community-driven curation system working in the realm of video games. (That I can think of.)

Valve still curates their market.
Apple does.
EA does.
Ubisoft does.
Microsoft does.
Sony does.
Nintendo does.

Google...somewhat does now. Is anybody clamoring for Valve to be more like pre-Google Play store Android? That thing was a nightmare. I'm betting if Valve put their mind to it, they could make the concept work, but you can't really have faith in something that doesn't exist.

 

[number47]

Modders should just stream their product then ask for donations. But who's going to protect their product from the piracy that doesn't exist.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

"our main goals were to allow mod makers the opportunity to work on their mods full time if they wanted to"

And how were they supposed to do that on their 25% of what little they were selling them for in the first place? Honestly, I wouldn't have minded the whole paid mods thing if it wasn't just a way for Bethesda and Valve to make a load of cash with zero effort off of the backs of naive independent workers.

 

[Train of Midnight]

That's exactly how the system did work. There wasn't a donation button however, just a link to the developer's paypal or patreon.

Valve was pulling those links because they weren't getting their cut, though.

 

[Vallen Valiant]

Modern Steam has run entirely without curation.

You mean I can put any game up for sale on Steam without Valve direct approval? I doubt it.

 

[ashecitism]

Valve was pulling those links because they weren't getting their cut, though.

That was debunked.

 

[afternoon delight]

They listened. Did not expect that.

Me neither. My faith in Valve is irrevocably shaken though- this was some c-tier junior executive shit implemented overnight with no open discussion. And then only talking to 'the market' after they saw abysmal feedback as opposed to their usual silence...

Blech. Just blech.

 

[aeolist]

Valve was pulling those links because they weren't getting their cut, though.

one guy had a link removed because he was using a URL shortener, which has always been against the rules (thanks to phishers and scammers)

 

[Nzyme32]

You mean I can put any game up for sale on Steam without Valve direct approval? I doubt it.

Greenlight still exists for new developers / publishers, but ones that are already in can publish any game they want anytime

 

[Train of Midnight]

That was debunked.

one guy had a link removed because he was using a URL shortener, which has always been against the rules (thanks to phishers and scammers)

News to me!

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

The "thanks a lot, gamers" reaction is reminding me exactly of some of the nonsense people were spewing back when Microsoft changed their minds about implementing Xbone's DRM. I'm getting really tired of this cycle of painting gamers as entitled hellspawn because they aired their misgivings about a potential paradigm shift in the market. New flash, you don't get away with terrible execution of a new style of monetization because you dressed it it up with the promises of paying people for their hard work.

 

[Grief.exe]

Valve was pulling those links because they weren't getting their cut, though.

As several other have said that was debunked. URL shortners are automatically removed for obvious reasons.
I hate when people use those on Twitter too.

You mean I can put any game up for sale on Steam without Valve direct approval? I doubt it.

As long as you apply for Greenlight, your game automatically gets moved through the process. It's a formality at this point before Valve removes it entirely.

 

[Durante]

I'm getting really tired of this cycle of painting gamers as entitled hellspawn

I was totally with you until I saw how some modders were treated by the "community" on e.g. reddit during this. "Entitled hellspawn" seems pretty apt!

 

[Srezic]

I see only one way gamers could let it slide with paid mods :

Opt'in by mod devs. They either choose to make them payable, or free, or have a donate button. But if they want to make money out of it, it's not up to gamers to choose if they can try. Gamers can vote with their wallet on paid mods.

BUT : If the mod is paid for, then at least 90% of the money should go to the mod dev and not the shameful 25% that was planned.

Overall, i'm all for the donation system. It worked until now. (of course not in Bethesda's mind because they're not getting a dime on it)

You're very misinformed. That is EXACTLY how the system worked. Modders could put up a free mod and flag it as "pay what you want" if they chose to do so.

Also, if you want a rational explanation of why 25% is actually very good for a seller in this circumstance (where the product is not wholly original), please read the following article interviewing Dean Hall (DayZ creator) on the subject: Dean Hall on paid Skyrim mods. The gist is that while the 70% app store comparison is alluring, it's not even remotely the same. The appstore is purely a platform, like Steam. However, if a person approached a studio and wanted to create a product based on their IP, the deal would be FAR worse than 25% of revenue, and they often wouldn't get a return until the IP holder recouped their initial investment. 25% feels wrong, yes. But it's actually a very good deal for creations using another IP.

As far as donations go, they are great in theory, poor in practice. Tell me about all of those mods/games which got great donations and allowed the creator to be a full time modder. A donation button is the equivalent of people buying cancer ribbons and thinking it actually does anything to prevent cancer. It's sitting there making you feel better, but no one actually does what needs to be done. I would very much like to see an infographic of a popular modder's donations. I would make a very large bet that hardly any of the users of a popular mod would even consider donation, but they like the idea of OTHERS donating.

Anyway, this is a big loss for gamers. The system was clunky, and rolled out poorly, but the seed of structured financial reward for organized modding is a very positive one, and I hope it will make a swift return in a new form.

 

[MaxiLive]

Glad it has been removed in its current format. I have no idea what is the best way to resolve the issue of monetising mods. I would like to see them keep it as it currently is and allow users to donate etc but then maybe also add a Mod Greenlight section? That allows the community to choose what mods are legit and deserved to be monetised rather than devs stealing content from each other and all other manners of mess.

It would work similar to the trading market for CS guns/Dota skins the highest classed mods get pushed to the top and gain some value while the free market will thrive as it currently does today.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

They are obviously creating value that they can't cash in on. If you could ask hobbyists if they would want to be able to make money off of their work I think it's pretty obvious which option most would pick. It is not for us to make that choice for others.

There was a market here. It's gone now.

No they aren't. They're doing what they do for fun and sharing it with the community. For a lot of modders, it's a learning exercise as much as it is a hobby. That is not a business, or a source of income.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

I was totally with you until I saw how some modders were treated by the "community" on e.g. reddit during this. "Entitled hellspawn" seems pretty apt!

Yeah, let's ignore all the people who presented their issues with this in a polite and constructive manner.

 

[aeolist]

No they aren't. They're doing what they do for fun and sharing it with the community. For a lot of modders, it's a learning exercise as much as it is a hobby. That is not a business, or a source of income.

dictating what all mods and modders should be isn't your place. enabling easy payment from the community would make modding viable for lots of people who can't bother right now.

 

[Zemm]

Thanks to those that spoke up, it takes a lot to make a big organisation admit they fucked up. I wish more people would stand up against shit like this, then we might not have to pay to play online etc.

 

[Fordfx2]

UBISOFT, You better be paying attention to this!

 

[JudgeN]

That seems incredibly optimistic. If people can get something for free they'll take it for free and invest that money into something that would otherwise cost them something.

I disagree people donate to people twitch streams constantly and that's completely free to watch. I really think people underestimate the amount of people that would donate to a really solid mod.

 

[Nzyme32]

Yeah, let's ignore all the people who presented their issues with this in a polite and constructive manner.

Sure but there was certainly a large amount of people brigading under the principle that modders / valve / publishers can not offer the option of a modder choosing to monetise their own work under any circumstance - which I still think is ridiculous. Doing it to an established game and it's mod community that was always based on free distribution and sharing of works with not licencing, was always a bad idea

 

[Lanrutcon]

What I got out of this entire fiasco is that we haven't given Durante enough monies for being awesome.

This saddens me.

 

[Grief.exe]

Sure but there was certainly a large amount of people brigading under the principle that modders / valve / publishers can not offer the option of a modder choosing to monetise their own work under any circumstance - which I still think is ridiculous. Doing it to an established game and it's mod community that was always based on free distribution and sharing of works with not licencing, was always a bad idea

Stump brought up a good point in the Steam thread that releasing this with Cities Skylines to test the waters would have probably been a better alternative than Skyrim for these reasons.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

dictating what all mods and modders should be isn't your place. enabling easy payment from the community would make modding viable for lots of people who can't bother right now.

I don't see it.

Modding isn't really viable for anything other than having fun modifying a game that they like to play and the enjoyment of contributing and sharing with others freely and easily. That's excluding the experienced total conversion modders who are looking to sell a game.