And all Valve has show for it is a lot of modders with destroyed reputations who are being harassed into leaving modding altogether. What a waste.
- 16
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What people doesn't realize, is that once you put money on the table, it's not passion, or the will to improve a game and make it better for the community that drives the modders.
It's greed.
Do you want modding community to look like the gaming industry? Full of incomplete games and DLC? Because that's what will happen.
It's greed.
Do you want modding community to look like the gaming industry? Full of incomplete games and DLC? Because that's what will happen.
- 10
- 3
Woohoo! They actually caved! Now, how about they start a new practice. Listen to your gaming community, feel things out before you do major changes like this.
- 4
- 1
They may have stopped for now, but don't think they won't try again the future. Consumers gave developers an important message over the weekend, we won't tolerate this kind of shameless cashgrab. If they try it again, we have to react just as massively.
- 7
- 1
I hope they come back with "pay what you want" with a 0 option. Talented modders deserve compensation for their work, just...
- 12
- 1
Bethesda just defended it.
Valve: Well, it is gone.
Initial impression is that Bethesda tried to follow Valve's Workshop pricing without following what made Valve's efforts work and justified their share, namely their strict QA and QCing of modder efforts. Doing it on a very mature game like Skyrim instead of starting fresh with FO4/TES6 was a easy to spot bad call too I think.
Honestly, Valve shouldn't be blame for this. I started out anti-paid mod but after debating this and reading the two blog posts I feel that if Bethesda has accepted a realistic share, like 5-10%, given they weren't doing the same amount of work as Valve is in the DOTA 2 Workshop this could have been a good thing.
A 60/30/10 split between Modder/Valve/Bethesda. Modders would have to learn they are responsible for QC/QA though. Valve or Bethesda would have to step up to do some policing of the Workshop, but that's something that could have been done with time.
Valve: Well, it is gone.
Initial impression is that Bethesda tried to follow Valve's Workshop pricing without following what made Valve's efforts work and justified their share, namely their strict QA and QCing of modder efforts. Doing it on a very mature game like Skyrim instead of starting fresh with FO4/TES6 was a easy to spot bad call too I think.
Honestly, Valve shouldn't be blame for this. I started out anti-paid mod but after debating this and reading the two blog posts I feel that if Bethesda has accepted a realistic share, like 5-10%, given they weren't doing the same amount of work as Valve is in the DOTA 2 Workshop this could have been a good thing.
A 60/30/10 split between Modder/Valve/Bethesda. Modders would have to learn they are responsible for QC/QA though. Valve or Bethesda would have to step up to do some policing of the Workshop, but that's something that could have been done with time.
- 3
- 2
- 1
@Deathlinger, nobody said you had to monetize your stuff. But to deny others that option is hogwash and being stubborn.
Yeah, I'm calling you out for hiding behind the dislike button.
Yeah, I'm calling you out for hiding behind the dislike button.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
seriously the thing that broke the neck of this forray was the lack of jurdical safety/guidelines and the monopoly valve would be able to enforce on mods.
who says that valve would not put DRM on mods or block any other modds "not certified" by the publisher?
After all free mods are competition for paid mods, where they get moeny from...
who says that valve would not put DRM on mods or block any other modds "not certified" by the publisher?
After all free mods are competition for paid mods, where they get moeny from...
- 3
By god which QA and QCing? Even GabeN admitted on Reddit that Valves curation measures were the biggest failure since the invention of these terms!
The share naturally is debatable a 50/25/25 share would be the most obvious line to draw. But still would you accept a market where Valve and respective publisher XY will be able someday to DRM mods or similiar things like charging for bug fixes because the community did it? And sorry if you dont agree with me that they would do such a thing, but corporate history has proven, that they will do everything that gains them money and they customers let them do. So without a system that prevent monopolization of this, I wont support monetarization via a singular plattform.
Edit: and like you Im pretty sure Ill get downvoted by some omnious user who does not participate in the discussion because hes to busy downvoting everything he doesnt like.
- 6
- 1
- 1
Read both links and look up the DOTA 2 workshop.
Valve provided their data from the DOTA 2 workshop to Bethesda, where Valve handles all QA, QC, continuing support, has a great community program to encourage that workshop, and curates.
Bethesda look at that data, said screw it, and just said let the modders and community handle all QA, QC, continuing support, and curation while not updating their middling tools for this new push. They then tried to say that just allowing modder to make money was worth 45% of the sales from the Skyrim Workshop. Additionally, Bethesda is already compensated for un/paid modding n+1 times, because each person that uses mods has to buy the Skyrim.
Now reread this.
Bethesda screwed the pooch hard.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
- 2
I both agree and disagree with this:
I disagree strongly. You can't take something back that you've already given away.
I agree strongly, this is exactly how paid modding should work if it's ever implemented; you keep what you got and if you want something new, pony up.
- 2
Additionally, there are some rules to just straight donations too. Below is from the Nexus, which was made with contact between Darkone and Bethesda.
Not Permissible:
Not Permissible:
- Asking for donations in exchange for password protected files or additional content e.g. offering your own kind of DLC for mods in exchange for donations. All mods must remain completely open, and completely free. You cannot offer additional content for donations.
- Asking for donations in exchange for updates for your uploaded files e.g. saying "for every £10 I receive I will update my mod with new fixes and features".
- Asking for donations in exchange for help or support e.g. saying you won't help someone to install or fix problems with their mods unless they donate to you.
- Offering incentives for people who donate to you. Anything that isn't just a straightforward, voluntary donation, in exchange for nothing.
- 4
- 2
- 2
If there's ever a good example of why this like system doesn't work, it's people like sinugie.
EDIT: Oh gee, I wonder who disagreed with me.
- 2
- 1
I gotta say, it's a bit o.t.t. calling out people who disagree with you.
The ratings should be treated as short posts quoting the post they're rating.
Like: "I agree." "This is my view." "+1"
Helpful: "That was informative." "That was just the info I was looking for." "Thanks for explaining that!"
Dislike: "I disagree." "That's stupid."
Looking at it that way, Like/Helpful eliminates mostly meaningless posts. The ratings do the job of the post, letting the ratee know they're appreciated.
Dislike however removes discussion from the board, like why they disagree and not letting you and the rater expand on that via dialogue and engagement. It stifles discussion when you can just dislike bomb someone instead of replying. Unlike reddit, forums are usually sufficiently moderated that self moderation by dislike only harms community engagement.
Thus, with nothing to quote I reply by tagging him and posting.
Edit: See, @Mr_Hobo doesn't like what I said but can't think of why or a reason I might be wrong. So he just hits "Disagree" to hopefully shut me up later.
Last edited:
- 6
- 2
Most of what you say may or may not be true. But it is the manner in which you are "calling them out" (your words when deathlinger disagreed with you). The impression your retorts leave is that people have no right to disagree with you.
I see the agree/disagree as a way to avoid pointless "+1" posts. Nobody has ever called them out in the manner you are doing, except moderators who generally frown on them.
Cheers
Bruce
- 2