​

User migles gave me a tip about an interesting development on Steam. Valve was always relatively open-minded in terms of game mods - in fact, some of their biggest franchises like Counter Strike and Team Fortress started off as user-created mods. The Steam Workshop was Valve's way of distributing such game mods via their Steam platform and now it also allows mod creators to sell their creations online.​

​

Revenue from selling these modifications is split between Valve, the developers of the original games and the mod developers, the latter getting 25% of the proceeds.​

​

As of right now you can only sell mods for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, but the new distribution platform shows promise to aspiring mod developers and puts the limelight on an activity that used to be relegated to the fringe of the gamingverse.​

​

Source (Steam Workshop) ​

​

​

Update: Valve removed paid mods from the Workshop. Here's a statement from an employee:

"We underestimated the differences between our previously successful revenue sharing models, and the addition of paid mods to Skyrim's workshop. We understand our own game's communities pretty well, but stepping into an established, years old modding community in Skyrim was probably not the right place to start iterating. We think this made us miss the mark pretty badly, even though we believe there's a useful feature somewhere here.
"Now that you've backed a dump truck of feedback onto our inboxes, we'll be chewing through that, but if you have any further thoughts let us know."

Source​

 

[Steena]

I struggle to think of an online community, much less one that requires some reasonable skills in various areas, that would not benefit from fewer thin skinned people be a part of it.

I'm not sure seeing your free work being monetized by random people, in a system that allows and encourages it, without any action you could realistically take against it, means having thin skin.

 

[FAST6191]

I'm not sure seeing your free work being monetized by random people, in a system that allows and encourages it, without any action you could realistically take against it, means having thin skin.

True but that was not what you said in the post I quoted.

That said I have no issues with someone making a paid extension that relies upon a free mod as well as the base game. Naturally you would have to figure out a way to install said mod outside the paid infrastructure but that is largely a solved issue.

 

[Vipera]

Can I ask to all the users in here that thought this was a good idea what's wrong with the old system?

Guy buys game. Guy is in love with game. Guy makes mod for beloved game. Game gets more popular thanks to mod. Game is bought more and more times. Guy buys game. Guy is in love with game. Guy makes mod for beloved game. Game gets more popular thanks to mod. Game is bought more and more times.
[repeat a hundred times]

Users get more free content and developers sell more units. Do you think that games like GTA IV would have been bought that many times if the PC version didn't have mods? I don't think so.
Even Nintendo knows better: they allow hacks of their games and let users enjoy them, as long as the hackers don't get revenue. You are telling me that asking for money on 0 warranty projects made by Mr. Nobody is better than the system that's been going on for decades? If what the guy's done is truly great, then I'm sure there can be other ways to reward him. Didn't that guy who wrote the Genesis emulator for the Nintendo DS work with Sega to make the Sonic Collection game?

This decision was just greedy and dangerous. We don't need the modding community to become a shithole like Android and its "open source philosophy" that granted the store to get tons of moneybait apps. If you are in just for the money you better find a real job.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that, if you think it's fair for the original developers to get paid by someone's mod, think again. In order to play a mod, you need to purchase the game. They did their part and that's their cut. They want more from this random guy? Then hire him or something.

 

[FAST6191]

"Nintendo allows hacks"

Since when? It is held that the lack of money involved means they turn a blind eye/can't be bothered to unleash the lawyer but I have not seen them allow it.
Their content creator program explicitly forbids at the least the actions needed to hack a game
https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/terms/
"d. Attempt to reverse engineer any aspect of the Content, or do anything that might discover source code or bypass or circumvent measures employed to prevent or limit access to any area, content or code of the Content (except as otherwise expressly permitted by law);"

As for what was wrong the traditional model, there was nothing really wrong with it, does not make the addition of paid mods wrong either though.

"if you think it's fair for the original developers to get paid by someone's mod, think again. In order to play a mod, you need to purchase the game. They did their part and that's their cut. They want more from this random guy? Then hire him or something."
That is an option I guess. However I view it as similar to my having just bought unreal, does not mean I am allowed to make a paid game in their engine. Being somewhat more dependent and low volume also justifies the revenue split for me as well.

"0 warranty"
Tried getting a refund on a game lately? Also if you are foolish enough buy it on steam then you will struggle to trade the thing back in as well.

 

[Vipera]

Steam can't be considered a good example because Valve tries to screw their customers all the time. In any other platform, you will get a refund. Hell, in any other platform nobody allows the stuff that Steam does in order to avoid stunts like DayZ. With mods you have to hope for this dude to update the mod you just purchased for the last game update, if he didn't run away with the money, mind you.
And yes, that link is just to have their ass covered "just in case". Have you ever heard of any hack rom that got a C&D just because it was a hack rom? I haven't, and I've been in that part of the hacking scene for almost a decade now.

 

[FAST6191]

The returning a game comment was not so much for steam but in general, real world or otherwise. The unable to trade it in thing was more steam being the cherry on the proverbial shit sundae.

Microsoft have similar language in their content usage guidelines ( http://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules as the first thing in the rules proper), various other consoles have things like "do not attempt to disassemble or modify parts of this software" in the manuals and on the discs. I did go through all the big companies that have such usage guidelines the other month and I will have to try to find the thread.

But yeah there have been a handful of cases where the lawyers perk up with regards to game hacking, we covered a couple in http://gbatemp.net/threads/commissioned-translations.385927/#post-5432984 the other day. Nothing like what troubles fan works but that is a different aspect of law anyway (fan works tending to be trademark which has to be gone after rather than copyright which applies more in hacking cases), equally none of the hacks/cases mentioned in that link were particularly dangerous in the precedent they might set.

 

[Steena]

True but that was not what you said in the post I quoted.

That said I have no issues with someone making a paid extension that relies upon a free mod as well as the base game. Naturally you would have to figure out a way to install said mod outside the paid infrastructure but that is largely a solved issue.

That's because the post you quoted was an existing discussion and those very points were present in the first post - if you jump in late, you should have read the chain of replies.

Also I am not talking about mod dependency (I think it's fine if PROPERLY disclosed, kept updated, and 100% accurate), but the fact that people take someone's free work and put THAT, as is, for sale.

The system was dog shit, that's the reality of the situation. Since day one, we already had modders contact lawyers because of these issues, with valve literally saying "we won't take any action unless legally compelled to do so, good luck", and that's not covering the horrible refund policies due to mods' inherent higher compatibility issues (you just cannot have the same refund policy for a mod as you do a game, as mods go through several more layers of dependencies, including the game itself, so it naturally needs a more flexible refund policy, objectively). You'd think the upside of having such a system would bring something to the table in terms of helping with compatibility or accessbility, the thing is, this only enhanced the negatives and didn't do anything to improve upon the existing issues that usually come with modding.

This was not an improvement for the end user, nor for the modders themselves. For every mod that legitimately made a profit, 10 people just stopped bothering because they'd have to go legal in trying to control what they could or could not do with their own stuff, spending more time and money than they otherwise would by putting their mod for sale themselves. Outright leaving the whole modding community, including very prominent figures.

This was solely done to attempt to move the traffic of nexus (and other sites like it) onto steam, meanwhile valve itself did zero effort in improving anything at all, they just wanted to control more territory and reinforce their monopoly further. It's stupid, it's greedy, it's lazy, it's pointless, it's detrimental. Modders DO DESERVE to be rewarded for their work, but there first needs to be a system that was not made by satan himself.

 

[FAST6191]

The reply was with the previous discussion in mind; I have been in this discussion since page 1.

Yeah a lack of ownership confirmation is an issue, however that is a systems issue and not a base concept issue which is more where I was coming from. My great hope is that people do not confuse the two issues, though I am not all that hopeful on that front.

I disagree on the need for a more flexible refund policy if it can be demonstrated to work with the game, possibly even specific versions thereof as it is a single player game.

"we won't take any action unless legally compelled to do so, good luck"
I suppose we never got to see what that was. It could have been something as simple as a basic DMCA claim/notice and not even something that needs to be filed with the court.

"This was not an improvement for the end user, nor for the modders themselves."
I am going to have to disagree there. It might or might not have been an improvement for the people that use mods (elder scrolls tending to get reasonably robust mod install and toggleable type options if not by default then very early on with prominent third party programs) but I would have to ponder whether.
The mod makers... that I would argue remained to be seen. On the people leaving thing then from what I have seen people leave the modding "community" for reasons up to and including because it is Tuesday. I think my general policy is "Do or do not, I will probably only note your passing if it is from this mortal coil.". Might it also have attracted new modders of some skill? There are some fairly prominent companies that used the tech of others and made mods expansion packs, this could have been something there.

"This was solely done to attempt to move the traffic of nexus (and other sites like it) onto steam"
I believe that is called business, it being a fairly key part of civilisation. Zero effort (I am not agreeing with that -- there was probably some considerable effort put into this), or just because they own the infrastructure which makes is lower effort than starting from scratch or not, matters little.


What I will ponder is whether Valve and assorted parties attempted to explode onto the scene by artificial wild west as it were -- people hold youtube worked because it was originally so easy to get pirated content on it (not that much has changed), people would pity others trying to come up in the let's play world now most of that has been locked down and some have argued GBAtemp received a good jolt when it was a ROM site and to this day the considerably more lax policies here with regards to various things don't exactly hinder it. If they had let the lawyers operate in CYA mode then it might have just fizzled, a free for all later locked down could have bypassed that issue.

 

[Bladexdsl]

can pretty much close this now

WE WON

 

[FAST6191]

can pretty much close this now

WE WON

Paid mods being removed was winning?

 

[ody81]

not talking about skyrim mods lol

anyway it's done WE WIN

What'd you win?

You don't like modders getting guaranteed payments (if they choose) but you want their mods?

Sounds like people have taken issue with Valve when their real problem is the modders who'd like a built in payment system. That's a slap in the face of any mod maker who thinks their hard work's worth a buck or two.

 

[G0R3Z]

I wouldn't say we won. Skyrim's community of tightly knit modders is what won here. Modders threatening to leave the hobby and people boycotting steam completely are how it won; as well as modding teams and website owners writing strongly worded statements to valve and bethesda too.

It doesn't mean it won't happen with another, newer game. It just means they know it isn't viable with Skyrim, the modders and player base won't let it happen.

 

[Bladexdsl]

What'd you win?

You don't like modders getting guaranteed payments (if they choose) but you want their mods?

no we won from letting this joke spread to other games and infect them with their BS M$T mods.

THAT'S WHAT WE WON!

 

[G0R3Z]

I and a lot of other modders in the skyrim agreed that a Humble Bundle Style donation system with a minimum that you pay (25p or a low price) and then the player can pay more if they want, with possibly a system to decide how much of the money the modder gets ( within reason ).

 

[FAST6191]

no we won from letting this joke spread to other games and infect them with their BS M$T mods.

THAT'S WHAT WE WON!

What is the matter with paid mods if the modder and the game devs have a setup for it?

 

[G0R3Z]

What is the matter with paid mods if the modder and the game devs have a setup for it?

Nothing, if it was done right. But steam messed it up badly. They introduced it with no real warning and didn't have much quality control, or even a limit on what to charge.

 

[FAST6191]

Warning I can live without, quality control was suspect and was giving some good discussion and a no limit on charges is fine by me -- determining a price for your product can be hard but in many cases better that than a fixed price.

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

What'd you win?

You don't like modders getting guaranteed payments (if they choose) but you want their mods?

Sounds like people have taken issue with Valve when their real problem is the modders who'd like a built in payment system. That's a slap in the face of any mod maker who thinks their hard work's worth a buck or two.

The fact that the modders only get 25% for their work and Valve and the game dev pockets the rest for doing nothing.

 

[G0R3Z]

Warning I can live without, quality control was suspect and was giving some good discussion and a no limit on charges is fine by me -- determining a price for your product can be hard but in many cases better that than a fixed price.

Most people just disliked the way modders were suddenly putting up some of the most loved, and most crucial mods under a paywall. Sure they can sell it, but they didn't even mention their intentions and the community feels betrayed. I don't beleive the community deserves an explanation because it's the modders choice if the access for some payment is there, but some taunted us by putting an ad into current versions to buy it on steam - that is just a knife in the back.

 

[ody81]

What is the matter with paid mods if the modder and the game devs have a setup for it?

Exactly, people like Bladexdsl are worse for the modding community than a payment setup. Shit, a couple of Skyrim modders have already left the scene because of that 'free the mods, fuck your free time and hard work' attitude.

And I'm still not sure what was 'won' exactly.

Purple_Shyguy
As the cash split, yeah Bethesda took a sizable chunk, too much. But they did explain clearly that the money a modder could make in no time at all could easily exceed the amount of money earned by any studio staff that actually developed the game, that's pretty swell. (And yes, the individual's in the studio aren't getting the money, the studio does. I know #corpratehatredjustbecause)

Take too small a cut and your employees may as well quit and wait for the modding scene to start up. If Bethesda took a smaller cut it'd maybe send the wrong message, maybe.