Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Makes you wonder if eventually in the future they'll monitor "illegal" mods.
Skyrim Workshop Now Supports Paid Mods
- Thread starter Sendou
- Start date
- Status
Meaning?
A apologies, you cannot really expect a community on the internet (very important that this is about Skyrim, as the way modding works with the engine is a messy ordeal), to suddenly find themselves wondering if their mod is going be profited by someone else, legally.
This is one of the issues that Chesko decided he was done for interim.
Besides the regulation issue, hiding it for a month was hardly called for, but that was likely a legal measure if anything.
The Share is nonsense, equal across the board should have been the division of money, though apparently this was the fault of the modders not asking for a raise, though that is speculation.
Many more intricacies that even i cant really go into in detail, as it is a hefty job understanding the requirements of sharing/legalese in the TES community.
Don't question the corporate overlods on gaf
Since the article itself keeps getting ignored I figure it's worth pointing one of the most prominents modder's, Dean Hall's, comments about the 25% cut:
Reading the whole article would be preferrable though.
I would consider a mod a derivative work of a licensed product. In this sense, you are making a new product based off the old one. This is a very different concept from licensing an engine (i.e. Unreal with 5% cut) or selling through a store (i.e. 30% cut or whatever). The comparison I would make is licensed products—in which case you must assess the value of the license when considering the percentage.
One of my key problems with the debate around this is the lack of discussion of split of profit vs revenue. Splits of revenue are very valuable, and perhaps unsurprisingly, very rare. Normally you will only make money after expenses, risk, etc… are recouped. Who knows what revenue agreements for middleware Bethesda has made? What about their risks from someone releasing an ISIS mod and causing damage to their IP?
Why is 25 percent a fair cut?
Elder Scrolls has to be one of the main blockbuster IP’s in the industry. It is like GTA, it’s incredibly valuable. If I approached Bethesda to make a derivative game, using their tools, assets, IP, distribution – I would not get a 25% revenue split (I would get less). If we want professional modding, which is what this is, then people cannot apply emotional arguments – they need to apply business arguments. Therefore the split needs to be considered based on value.
The parties to the arrangement are Valve, Bethesda (as the publisher), and the creator. Valve, understandably, probably want to maintain the same arrangements they always get – it’s the store split that you compared in your article to the Apple Store. Bethesda have their own costs, and they take the rest of the split – based on the value the IP has and their contributions to tooling, their risks and opportunity cost losses (DLC, etc…. Let us imagine that they are getting something like 30-50% of the transaction – I would say that is a reasonable cut based on:
Value of the IP
Risks/opportunity cost
Provision of tools/documentation
What about more extensive mods?
Naturally this “one size fits all” approach there will be winners and losers. But for me, the fact is that if we swap out the word “modder” and replace it with “developer” – this represents a great deal. So to say that this is a “raw deal” then it means that developers having been getting a raw deal for some time from publishers – and that discussion should occur as a wider discussion and really has little to do with the value of a mod.
I would imagine if this system is successful for Bethesda, and I think it will be, it could well open up a whole new approach whereby either Bethesda supports these “super mods” with better deals, or the teams will have made enough money to strike out on their own.
Reading the whole article would be preferrable though.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Not everything should be fit into capitalism and the real world of IP's laws, DMCA's and corporate deals.
The fact that people were doing mods because they just loved doing it, and not for the money was what made modding as beautiful as it was.
You say the comparison I used [to the Apples Store] is off the mark and I agree it’s far from perfect. What comparison would you make instead?
I would consider a mod a derivative work of a licensed product. In this sense, you are making a new product based off the old one. This is a very different concept from licensing an engine (i.e. Unreal with 5% cut) or selling through a store (i.e. 30% cut or whatever). The comparison I would make is licensed products—in which case you must assess the value of the license when considering the percentage.
One of my key problems with the debate around this is the lack of discussion of split of profit vs revenue. Splits of revenue are very valuable, and perhaps unsurprisingly, very rare. Normally you will only make money after expenses, risk, etc… are recouped. Who knows what revenue agreements for middleware Bethesda has made? What about their risks from someone releasing an ISIS mod and causing damage to their IP?
Why is 25 percent a fair cut?
Elder Scrolls has to be one of the main blockbuster IP’s in the industry. It is like GTA, it’s incredibly valuable. If I approached Bethesda to make a derivative game, using their tools, assets, IP, distribution – I would not get a 25% revenue split (I would get less). If we want professional modding, which is what this is, then people cannot apply emotional arguments – they need to apply business arguments. Therefore the split needs to be considered based on value.
The parties to the arrangement are Valve, Bethesda (as the publisher), and the creator. Valve, understandably, probably want to maintain the same arrangements they always get – it’s the store split that you compared in your article to the Apple Store. Bethesda have their own costs, and they take the rest of the split – based on the value the IP has and their contributions to tooling, their risks and opportunity cost losses (DLC, etc…
Value of the IP
Risks/opportunity cost
Provision of tools/documentation
What about more extensive mods?
Naturally this “one size fits all” approach there will be winners and losers. But for me, the fact is that if we swap out the word “modder” and replace it with “developer” – this represents a great deal. So to say that this is a “raw deal” then it means that developers having been getting a raw deal for some time from publishers – and that discussion should occur as a wider discussion and really has little to do with the value of a mod.
I would imagine if this system is successful for Bethesda, and I think it will be, it could well open up a whole new approach whereby either Bethesda supports these “super mods” with better deals, or the teams will have made enough money to strike out on their own.
But aren’t modders doing all the legwork at this point?
That is naive. That is not how business works. If we want professional modding then it is a business and our deals should represent business value considerations. It’s not “who did more work” it’s an assessment of value. Bethesda have made an incredibly successful license and they are entitled to capitalize on that. They have valued that contribution to somewhere between half/a third of revenue.That seems very fair to me.
since nobody's going to actually read it, here's some of an interview forbes did about this with the creator of DayZ
edit: Damn you, _machine!
These past couple of articles linked in this thread from modders and developers I think have a distinct lack of the consumer's perspective in their views. I wish they would address those concerns instead of just posting their point of view.
In order to get a better understanding of the situation we have to look at from different points of view ( consumer, developer, modder, Valve, etc. ) across a time frame ( I tend to simply it to short & long term ).
I am pressed for time, so I will try to make my point as clear as possible in a short amount of text. Apologies if it turns out unclear.
Devs & modders tend to be completely ignoring the fact that consumers are getting the short end of the stick of this move in the short term. Consumers have had value subtracted from the marketplace ( free content moved behind a paywalls, early access mods, advertisement inside the free versions, etc. ). I believe, in the short term, there will be a influx of "cash in" mods from newcomers to the scene who are just trying to enrich themselves quickly and who don't really care about the long term vitality of Skyrim. They just want a quick buck, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to do so. If this move to paid mods will be beneficial from the consumer in the long run is in question. I hope it does, but I doubt it will in Skyrim's case. I think the game has been out too long for dev teams to start a fresh new innovative mod for a game that probably isn't on many peoples radar. They will probably be better spent creating that content for a different game.
Overall, I get a general sense that the parties involved in this situation are doing their best to avoid admitting the truth of the matter that consumers are getting less value in the short term because of this move. I wish they would at least be more upfront about that fact.
Also I would also quickly like to mention that Bethesda does indirectly receive income from free mods, because many users know that when they buy Skyrim on release day for full price there will be mods in the future that will enhance the experience. It's part of the value calculation many consumers do when deciding to purchase a game. If this becomes standard ( paid mods ) then the base game ( Skyrim 2 for example ) becomes a less attractive value at $60, than Skyrim 2 w/ free mod support. This isn't to say Bethesda don't deserve a cut of the DLC sold, but there were profiting from free MODS already, just indirectly.
Everything above is just my speculation. I apologize if I am horribly mistaken.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
scan your installed mods and check if they are approved or not
Nothing prevents people from continuing to do that.
crazyrabbits
Banned
Indeed. This is what I was saying quite a few pages back - there's always going to be someone else who comes along and does the same work for less or free, either out of a love for their own work or a genuine desire to give back to the community (donations notwithstanding).
I still haven't heard much of a cogent argument for exactly how this is going to increase the quality of mods. Were these items that had semi-official support (like LFD2's "Cold Steam") and had that professional level of polish and backing, I could see it, but these items are seemingly being thrown up with no regard as to quality or ethics (again, we've seen the first early access mod and a modmaker using mobile tactics in their "free version" in one day, and people are acting like this is an outlier).
It also doesn't work when there is a free (albeit ad-supported, donation-capable) alternative that already has the framework in place to handle demand and visibility much better.
Steam was garbage in the very beginning until people complained loudly and frequently for them to change their policies, and their doing so led to its popular reception and dominance over the last few years. However, their actions as of late (poor customer service, Greenlight service filled with shovelware) gives me no hope that they'll be able to make this work without serious revisions.
ashecitism
Member
before that he called Petri "daft" and lumped in others as "sentimental boobs" and I think there might have been more before that with the politics shit.
![[Asmodean]](/data/avatars/m/123/123312.jpg?1526393694){kind=avatar}
[Asmodean]
Member
While I can't, and won't speak for anyone else. I wouldn't even consider charging for my work, when it came to modding. Imo, it's setting a bad example.
Mods should be labours of love, and that should be incentive enough for doing them. Not monetary gains, like every other bs already in existance.
Mods should be labours of love, and that should be incentive enough for doing them. Not monetary gains, like every other bs already in existance.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Nothing prevents it, but they will keep doing it?
When opportunity cost, ROI and all these terms are into equation I feel the original spirit of modding will slowly die.
So it is up to us to waste money to see if something doesn't ruin our game?
Skyrim is no joke when it comes to incompatible nonsensical structures.
So basically, it's okay to sell something with absolutely no promise of quality control. It's the customers fault to buy something that doesn't work even though they don't necessarily can have prior knowledge to it
Aside from putting up a Donate button, I think it would be nice to have crowdfunding initiatives. Like when an amount of money gets donated, this feature will get added by the modder(s).
Once the feature is added, it is availabe for everyone. Not just the backers.
Let's face it: it would bring in money a lot faster than simply having a Donate button...
Perhaps the Nexus could implement this.
But anyway, the current system on Steam is awful.
Once the feature is added, it is availabe for everyone. Not just the backers.
Let's face it: it would bring in money a lot faster than simply having a Donate button...
Perhaps the Nexus could implement this.
But anyway, the current system on Steam is awful.
I've been pointing out examples for ages now, but again let's check one good example which is close to my heart. United Racing Design provides probably the best quality mods seen for rFactor or Assetto Corsa. They are made by professional people that also work together with developers to produce content for games, but they also make their own paid mods. The quality is really something else, I really haven't seen many pieces of content that are as good. I had no problem paying 5.20 for 5 cars for Assetto Corsa. That said, probably 95% of mods I have for the game are free, some good, some not very good, but the community is still very much thriving alongside the paid content. The same stolen content applies to the scene still and I have seen stolent content sold as well, but later taken on.
Now, the audience and market is very much different and much smaller, but it still is very much proof that not only can paid mods produce very high quality content it can live alongside free mods and those free mods can still remain extremely good.
GHG
Member
The biggest issue is not that modders shouldn't be allowed to monetize their work should they wish. Man should be free to enjoy the fruits of his labour if he wishes.
The biggest issue is that they never originally created with monetization in mind. And as such, by introducing the potential to monetize it changes the whole mindset and approach towards modding. It is very difficult for people to be collaborative and create out of passion when money is potentially involved.
Like it or not, that can easily sum up Valve's policies moving forward. The store, market, and mods are entirely dictated by the community, Valve looks to remove itself from the equation as much as possible.
Or they could just get a refund within 24 hours.
Only before they would not get burned out of their money if they chose a shitty mod. But hey, at least profit is being made. That is what counts, right?
Red Blaster
Member
what if the mod i downloaded has problems/conflicts that don't manifest in the game until a week later
Mods that depict things illegal or contain illegal imagery (such as swastikas in Germany).
They do ban workshop mods from time to time and there was Sandvich Baby reskin that Valve went after Game banana and others for hosting.
Then how do good video games ever happen?
actually a decent point. perhaps the refund window should be extended a bit
I dont really know what to think about this, of course people whom make mod's and want to get paid for them should. I just hope the publishers and developers dont lock the whole thing down. And there are still the experimentations and collaborations you get in more open environments.
Yet still get a share of the money
I have no interest in being refunded in steambucks. And even so, that doesn't excuse the fact that the product is still there, and that a bad monetized mod shouldn't be there in the first place
How is it different from any new game coming to Steam? You either buy it at launch or not. If you decide to wait you have more impressions to base your purchase decision on. Although what's different from buying games is obviously the 24 hours return policy. If it doesn't work then get your money back. My personal stance is that I won't buy anything that doesn't have a plethora of positive reviews. On the other hand I realize that some people are more adventurous.
Even before picking apart this logic at a fundamental level. How can you even make this argument? There is no possible way to objectively measure 'mindset' or 'intent.'
And why would they not be entitled to a portion of the revenue? Putting forth the substantial investment to cultivate the systems in place, servers, and store fronts? Not to mention potential legal fees associated with such an endeavor.
Yet more ad hominem. I get frustrated as well, but there is no point resorting to this.
Chezzymann
Member
What about updating mods? What if you buy a mod, a new patch comes out next week, and you can never use the mod again because the developer decided to stop updating the mod without telling anyone in advance? Or bugs, what if a mod developer is really lazy with fixing bugs? Are you just screwed? How would you know who is good and who is bad with this stuff?
The Cowboy
Member
When the money goes back to the form of payment (say a debit card or Paypal), then we can call it a refund.
Having it go to the Steam Wallet is just giving money to Valve no matter what, the current system is heavily stacked to Valve favour - buy a mod they get 25%, want a refund? they still get a % as you don't get a proper refund - you get store credit..
crazyrabbits
Banned
The one with 7 mods, no refunds at all and a poor-looking webpage? That doesn't make the Workshop any better by comparison.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
Which is true but that doesn't mean the overall vibe and mentality around it won't change even if it's purely psychological.
I see it the same way in how nothing would prevent people from enjoying their normal difficulty mode in the souls games even if they did introduce an easy mode.
Sure the significance of both is in no way comparable but I think the effect and circumstance of a resulting change in perception is.
And don't take it the wrong way I'm not saying that modders shouldn't be compensated. I just think that core vibe in the modding community shouldn't be just thrown away as something unimportant and maybe we could discuss how a better handling of the situation could have made the wish of nurturing/making modding as a job viable while not being so at odds with that sentiment.
I thought that guy that does the cities patreon thing was a very interesting take in that direction and maybe we could have made that more attractive to users.
Will that money be refunded back to their accounts? Or will it just be converted to steam wallet funds? If its the first, then yeah, its fine no problem. If its the second, then that's a problem because thats just credit.
Thinking people should be able to get paid for the content they make if they wish to do so is being a corporate overlord?
That's the same argument as for "bad" games not being there. I disagree, and apparently Valve also disagrees. Amazon can and should allow the sale of "bad" books, and Valve can and should allow the sale of "bad" games and mods, and people can decide what to buy.
You can't argue against a "corporate overlord" on the one side and then ask for one to filter your purchasing options on the other.
Not all broken mods break as soon as you launch the game. It's been discussed a few times aleady in the thread but basically it can take hours if not days for something to break because of mods in Skyrim. A steam wallet refund isn't good enough.
The Cowboy
Member
Its the 2nd one, whatever the form of payment it gets refunded back to the Steam wallet - Valve where very smart in this as its profit for them no matter if you keep a mod or refund it.
Add to this, they have rules in place that state they can block you from refunds if you do them to much.
PetriP-TNT
Member
I guess people accidentally put the donation links to their pages, not because they hoped to get some compensation from the mods they make
Getting a refund from Amazon is far more valuable however, Amazon is also probably Steams biggest and most dangerous rival. (though that is a complicated and needless story)
Are you talking about The Gray Cowl of Nocturnal? I was curious, but couldn't find anything on the Nexus called Cowl of Nocturne...
Looking at the description, yes, this does seem to be the type of mods that people probably expect when talking about paid mods. It does look like something I wouldn't mind paying for (though it looks like he is keeping it free).
Modders always knew they weren't going to make much if any money from their projects, and at best were building their portfolios to try to leverage their work into industry jobs. Yes.
What does that have to do with whether modders deserve compensation for their work? It doesn't. They do. They don't have to sell their product, but if they want to they should have the opportunity for compensation beyond the 0.17% handout love, which happens to make a 25% revenue split sound amazing by comparison (though I'd much prefer a better split for the modders).
If someone is scared that the advent of a mod marketplace is going to instantly and fundamentally change the nature of the mod scene, well, yes, they have every reason to be scared. Before this, people were putting in tremendous effort creating content for little to no return and all of the users were reaping the rewards, and now that there's an alternative which makes a lot more sense for the people putting in the work.
Exactly. I remember way back in the day there was that one pinball game Valve decided wasn't a good fit for Steam audience and so they didn't allow it in. That's part of quality control too. Wouldn't it be much simpler to let customers decide what to buy and what not to buy? Ultimately the kind of quality control that both A) lets in everything that X amount of people would pay for and B) filters out the crap does not exist.
crazyrabbits
Banned
Yeah. Speaking just as someone who modded Baldur's Gate II back in the day, there were some mods that worked great all the way through, some that bugged out my system or caused it to crash uncontrollably midway through a run, some that caused underlying compatibility issues with other mods (that didn't manifest itself until late-game) and some that just didn't work at all.
Were there a longer refund period (48-72 hours) and a pay-what-you-want (even free) feature, there wouldn't be nearly the same backlash.
ashecitism
Member
I think he just meant it as in EviLore is the boss and juniez shouldn't question his (and the mods') decision (in general).
Oh, that's really going to be a problem due to how Skyrim mods work, some will work, some wont, and some will just have horrible performance on your setup and work fine on the next.
There are games like that as well. Some are still being sold on Steam too. How do we cope? Well as it is the word seems to get around pretty quickly and games that work rise to the top. Why should it be any different with mods? Can't see a problem with Steam Wallet myself. So what is it? Is there one unless you don't want to spend money on Steam after that one mod purchase that turned out the be a dud? That seems kind of an unlikely scenario to me.
I understand the argument against it when said content has before always been free. It's easy to see why people don't want to be corporate ball washers for something that they never had to buy before being put behind a paywall.
While this does not affect me personally, I am still a gamer and see where the anger is coming from regarding this. You would have to be blind not to from a consumer standpoint.
- Status