Paid mods on Steam

[Philipwns]

In my opinion this could destroy modding as we know it. Previously, any mod, let's say a sword mod for skyrim, could reach thousands and thousands of people. Why? Because it was free. It cost the consumer absolutely nothing. We could download mods left and right without impediment. This made the modding community extremely dynamic and fluid. The ability for mods to reach the entire community at no cost was the source of its vibrancy, and this ability was derived from its lack of cost to the consumer. Now, with paid mods, how many of those original thousands will be willing to buy that sword mod for $2.50? A few dozen? A few hundred? Paid mods will do nothing but constrict the market and mod innovation. I am totally and completely against this.

 

[ABookshelf]

By your logic though, the idea of any help they offer in the way of support deserves additional compensation, leads down a slippery slope of the right to charge for everything they do. Want tech support? Pay a fee for access to it. Want forums? Need a fee for that. Want multiplayer? Guess we need a subscription model. Want patches? Guess we need a subscription model for that. While it sounds like hyperbole, the logic of paying extra, directly or indirectly, for every additional bit of support beyond the initial release of the game is slowly creeping its way into the industry. Paradox's DLC model is already a way to pay for that support of patches, they themselves have said that. How many times do you need to pay developers for the same thing?

Well I'll keep paying PI for EU4 for instance because I feel like I'm actually getting my moneys worth. After 4 DLCs I guess I've spent about 100 bucks "buying" EU4 over a span of 2 years? But I do feel like I have a 100 dollar game. At the very least, my total playtime says I have a 100 dollar game.

You argued earlier that it's the consumer's fault if they get burned by bad modders.

Yes and this is true as well. You're engaging on a market with no protections, no guarantees, no history. Its common sense NOT to engage here. As the consumer you chose to accept that risk and if it doesn't work out, you're partially to blame. If you go to a doctor you know is unlicensed for medical treatment, you're knowingly taking a big risk. If you buy second-hand DVDs off the street for a lower price, you're accepting the risk that you're being sold blank DVDs. The fraud salesman/bad modder is also to blame, but you knowingly accepted a risk so you're complicit in your own loss.

 

[PanzerCorps]

Well I'll keep paying PI for EU4 for instance because I feel like I'm actually getting my moneys worth. After 4 DLCs I guess I've spent about 100 bucks "buying" EU4 over a span of 2 years? But I do feel like I have a 100 dollar game. At the very least, my total playtime says I have a 100 dollar game.

Yes and this is true as well. You're engaging on a market with no protections, no guarantees, no history. Its common sense NOT to engage here. As the consumer you chose to accept that risk and if it doesn't work out, you're partially to blame. If you go to a doctor you know is unlicensed for medical treatment, you're knowingly taking a big risk. If you buy second-hand DVDs off the street for a lower price, you're accepting the risk that you're being sold blank DVDs. The fraud salesman/bad modder is also to blame, but you knowingly accepted a risk so you're complicit in your own loss.

So it's a bad market that no one should engage in, but that should exist anyway? Like leaving a huge hole in the middle of the street and saying "If someone is stupid enough to fall in that, it's their fault anyway"

 

[Jia Xu]

Yes and this is true as well. You're engaging on a market with no protections, no guarantees, no history. Its common sense NOT to engage here. As the consumer you chose to accept that risk and if it doesn't work out, you're partially to blame. If you go to a doctor you know is unlicensed for medical treatment, you're knowingly taking a big risk. If you buy second-hand DVDs off the street for a lower price, you're accepting the risk that you're being sold blank DVDs. The fraud salesman/bad modder is also to blame, but you knowingly accepted a risk so you're complicit in your own loss.

We already discussed this. "Common sense" is not an evidence based argument. The reason why business regulations and licences exist is because government and society both recognize that consumers need to be protected from predators. If you go to a doctor and find out that he or she is unlicensed, you should call the police. What that doctor is doing is a crime. When you're buying a DVD "off the street" you're not having it sold to you by official vendors, which is what Steam is. Nice try though.

 

[Pete0714]

This.

We *already* pay for all they offer. This is like saying I should give 75% of the money I make to my university because without them, I wouldn't have the skills to succeed. Uh, sure. University is important - that's why I pay them thousands of dollars while studying there. And that's it. I'm not going to pay 75% of my money to my university, or the company that made my car because it allows me to reach my workplace, or the company that makes clothes that I buy because I can't go to work naked.

When I paid for the game, I didn't just pay for the game itself. I paid for access to the steam workshop. I paid for the right to mod it. That's part of the reason why I bought it on steam and not say, on Origin, even though Origin has faster downloads. All they're adding is giving me the right to sell it - something that takes no effort whatsoever.

Thamk you, I was just about to mention this. People I think are missing the point that the price for the game contains within it quite a few budgetary items, not jsut the cost for that game to be developed to that point. They have budgeted into that cost the cost of wages, support, future development, paying the bills, services related to the game, legal, etc, etc, etc. People can't be duped into believing that this mod cut will go towards covering something that wasn't already covered for support. It was already paid for before.

 

[ABookshelf]

When you're buying a DVD "off the street" you're not having it sold to you by official vendors, which is what Steam is.

Ah but buying a DVD off the street isn't analagous to buying from Steam. Again you've misunderstood everything. Buying the DVD from the store or off of Amazon is having content sold to you by an official vendor, like buying content from Valve or a certified publisher. But we're not buying games or official DLCs, we're buying content from unknown, uncertified modders with no guarantees of anything. THEY are the "off the street" vendor. "Nice try though."

 

[Jia Xu]

Ah but buying a DVD off the street isn't analagous to buying from Steam. Again you've misunderstood everything. Buying the DVD from the store or off of Amazon is having content sold to you by an official vendor, like buying content from Valve or a certified publisher. But we're not buying games or official DLCs, we're buying content from unknown, uncertified modders with no guarantees of anything. THEY are the "off the street" vendor. "Nice try though."

You forgot to respond to the part of my post where your illegal doctor is illegal, and how "common sense" is a buzz phrase you use when you're making it up as you go along. Guess what? Buying DVDs off the street is illegal too. It violates copyright and tax laws.

 

[ABookshelf]

Guess what? Buying DVDs off the street is illegal too. It violates copyright and tax laws.

Good point. So in addition to the risk that you might be sold blank DVDs, you're also risking the chance that you'll be caught for breaking the law. So don't act surprised when the vendor turns out to be an undercover cop. Really though the legality of any of these situations is irrelevant, you're just looking for red herrings to derail my argument. The point is, there's a very clear and obvious risk inherent in all of these things and if they don't work out, that's partially on your decision-making

 

[PanzerCorps]

Good point. So in addition to the risk that you might be sold blank DVDs, you're also risking the chance that you'll be caught for breaking the law. So don't act surprised when the vendor turns out to be an undercover cop. Really though the legality of any of these situations is irrelevant, you're just looking for red herrings to derail my argument. The point is, there's a very clear and obvious risk inherent in all of these things and if they don't work out, that's partially on your decision-making

AND THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE LEGAL.

Amen.

 

[Quaade]

Against paid mod for the most part, since most of them changes little or have not to little effect on the game. Like a new sword, different shade of colour or something like that.

But some mods are quite extensive, add new content, features, change gameplay hugely. That require a lot of work on their behalf to complete and to keep updated and enjoyable. Granting them a little money to ensure they keep it updated and gives them an incentive to do this. Modding can take a lot of time from my experience, between work, studies and wifey theres to little time for too little gain. I´m not saying they should be able to quit their daytime jobs, but at least appreciate those people who put countless of hours to bring us massive mods.

There should be some limitations to avoid this being an open-market for scammers.

1) Paradox elects which mods are allowed to be sold at a small price, taking only a small amount for themselves. (this to pay for the guy who most play through mods and see if it´s worth anything). This would ensure that not every mod get up for sale unless it has been sent to PDX first for testing.

2) Mod should add content or change gameplay, perhaps be a total overhaul like changing the map/world. In short, the mod should change the game in a greater extend than just changing a few numbers or changing the colour.

3) Mod should be original from the creating person/team. No mod should consist only from others work by gathering bits and pieces from all over, but being allowed to from the creator to use their mods in a smaller extent (this however raises the issue when part of the mod have free content or borrowing from paid content, will they get a share too).

4) Free testing for a week or a month (however they will check this) so that you can see if it works for you too. PDX might appreciate the mod enough for letting them get money, but might not be what you are looking for how the game should be played.

5) low pricing is essential, a great mod should cost about 3-5 €, smaller 0,5-1 €. Discount should be available for beta-testers of the mod.

 

[Jia Xu]

Good point. So in addition to the risk that you might be sold blank DVDs, you're also risking the chance that you'll be caught for breaking the law. So don't act surprised when the vendor turns out to be an undercover cop. Really though the legality of any of these situations is irrelevant, you're just looking for red herrings to derail my argument. The point is, there's a very clear and obvious risk inherent in all of these things and if they don't work out, that's partially on your decision-making

You derailed your own argument when you refused to address my points and started posting just to save face and to insult me, personally.

You're burning your own argument alive. The thing about crimes is that you aren't allowed to profit from them, which is what Valve and Bethesda are going to be doing here as soon as they take a dime from a mod linked to fraud. "It's irrelevant because I said so!" isn't a counter-argument. It wasn't a counter-argument in the last post, it wasn't a counter-argument in this post, and it won't be a counter-argument in the next post. Something isn't irrelevant because you have no response to it. Also, you don't seem to know what "red herring" actually means in the context you attempted to use it in.

 

[PanzerCorps]

Against paid mod for the most part, since most of them changes little or have not to little effect on the game. Like a new sword, different shade of colour or something like that.

But some mods are quite extensive, add new content, features, change gameplay hugely. That require a lot of work on their behalf to complete and to keep updated and enjoyable. Granting them a little money to ensure they keep it updated and gives them an incentive to do this. Modding can take a lot of time from my experience, between work, studies and wifey theres to little time for too little gain. I´m not saying they should be able to quit their daytime jobs, but at least appreciate those people who put countless of hours to bring us massive mods.

If you want to make money off your programming knowledge(which I do plan on doing in the future), you can:

-Become a game developer and work for a big company
-Do freelance work or sell your content to an actual company that will have an interest in it.

Modding is a noble thing. If you're only modding for profit, fine, but profit is not what modding is about and I daresay I have much less respect for modders who do what they do to make money and those who do it to help the community.

The above 2 options, already available to everyone, are better than paid mods because:

A)Assured continued support and quality assurance
B)You don't give 75% of the money to people you've never seen who've done nothing for you
C)You get inside knowledge about updates so it's much easier to correct mistakes in a timely manner
D)Your work gets copyrighted so a random online person can't just steal it and give it to everyone for free

As you can see those options are better both for the community, AND the modders themselves. The ONLY people who profit from this are Valve and Bethesda.

 

[Naselus]

Can we drop the preposterous notion that Valve and Bethesda are somehow ripping modders off by paying them? If you think receiving 25% is being ripped off, you're not really familiar with the games industry. Prior to Steam, retailers routinely took 50% or more of the POS value, and then the publisher took by far the lion's share of the remainder. This has been the case in EVERY creative industry for a long time, be it books, art, music, PC games, DVDs... To take a reasonably topical example, George R.R. Martin has a net worth of around $15 million. He's sold 60 million copies of his books. That's 25 cents per book he's ever sold. And I don't know what the last book you bought was, but I'm willing to bet it cost more than a dollar. He's getting considerably less than 25% of the sale value of his work. 25% is a good deal; we get free hosting, free advertising, and we're actually getting a return from our work. I'd take 25% of something over 100% of nothing pretty much every time, tbh.

Likewise, the idea that modders are somehow better off keeping 100% of the proceeds from a donation model is absolute rubbish. For a very long time indeed, my mod was (by far and away) the most popular mod for V2. First-week downloads were around 5,000 per release when it was at it's most popular. I was contacted approximately seven times by people looking to donate (I told them I wouldn't accept anything) in the first 18 months of production. That's 0.12% of the player base who were interested in chipping in a little something voluntarily; admittedly, I wasn't actively requesting donations, but even if you do it's not a good monetization strategy. You need a player base in the hundreds of thousands. Dwarf Fortress, for example, is a full game using a donation model. It combines a huge playerbase with cult status, and only just earns enough money to keep Toady One in a grubby flat in the cheap part of town - and that's with many players offering repeat donations specifically to support him.

Seriously, get real guys. You're not objecting to Valve 'exploiting' modders here. You're objecting to having to pay for mods at all. That's fine, there's a genuine argument to be had over whether mods are a marketable product; they have no real protections from plagiarism and there's no real guarantee of quality control. They often infringe copyright material in a way that simply isn't allowed in a monetized product. They are often abandoned in an incomplete state, or attempt to do things which aren't actually possible with the hardcode of the game itself. These are all important points to be discussed. But don't try and pretend that you're complaining on behalf of the modders because getting paid instead of giving their stuff away for free is somehow against their interests, because it's not a remotely credible argument.

 

[PanzerCorps]

Seriously, get real guys. You're not objecting to Valve 'exploiting' modders here. You're objecting to having to pay for mods at all.

Yes, please tell me more about what I believe and how I am pissed for having to pay for mods to a game I don't even own

 

[Gamer_1745]

Your personal attacks will get this thread closed.

It seems that some here think that paying for mods would be OK if Paradox didn't get any of it. If Paradox supports you and allows you on their forum for your product then you own them something (I am not say I think it should be 75%).

Others say that mod should be free or they will become bad. Should games just be free?

Others say mods are not as good company content. To this you need to look at some of the mods for HoI3, they are much better than anything I have seen from Paradox. Not that I think the Paradox stuff is bad, it is good, it is just that some of the modders have made mods that are more innovative and better researched.

 

[PanzerCorps]

Your personal attacks will get this thread closed.

It seems that some here think that paying for mods would be OK if Paradox didn't get any of it. If Paradox supports you and allows you on their forum for your product then you own them something (I am not say I think it should be 75%).

It should be something like 20%. And the difference between 20% and 75% is huge enough and worthy of arguments.

Others say that mod should be free or they will become bad. Should games just be free?

No, games are a business. They started out as a business. I don't want to go on and on explaining all the differences again, they've been discussed to death in this thread.

(BTW - yes I am arguing both against having to pay for mods and the huge % they're taking. I don't like having to pay for mods, but it's not *that* bad. I could adapt if it all went to the modder. But giving 75% to valve and bethesda? No thanks.)

Others say mods are not as good company content. To this you need to look at some of the mods for HoI3, they are much better than anything I have seen from Paradox. Not that I think the Paradox stuff is bad, it is good, it is just that some of the modders have made mods that are more innovative and better researched.

How many of them? 1%? Of those 1%, how many go for over a year without breaking? And that's with HOI3 not getting nearly as many overhauls as CK2 or EU4...[/QUOTE]

 

[Epicity]

I wonder what would happen if all Valve employees just decided to not come into work next week. No technical staff to look after hardware or their network, no support staff to handle questions, no nothing. Lets see how many people are downloading any content if Valve indeed decides to do, as you say they're currently doing, no additional work.

That makes no sense. In what way are they doing additional work? THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN HANDLING NETWORKS! Not additional. Also, there's already no support staff anyway

Additional != Continuing.

 

[loup99]

My issue is neither Valve, or any modder. They did their work, they did what felt like the best. My issue, my problem, all of my disapproval is directed towards the third actor: Bethesda. If Paradox would do this in this fashion, I would leave too. Giving money as a modder to paradox or steam would not disturb me either, the issue would be another: taking pays for modded work in this very specific manner. Actually, some projects like Darkest Hour or For the Glory are close to modding cooperation with studio and producing games. But, the way it is done here, I'm against, 100%.

 

[ABookshelf]

Ok heres an analogy that has no legality for anybody to nitpick at that will hopefully explain the concept of taking a risk. Your boss offers you an overtime shift for Friday night to make an extra 100 dollars. Thats valve or an official publisher offering you a guaranteed exchange for your money. You know what you're getting from them. Instead you go to a casino to put money on the roulette. Thats giving your money to an unknown content creator and asking him for content instead. Its risky. With your boss, you knew what you were getting. On the mod market, you can't be sure what you'll get or what will happen. Hopefully it'll work out. It doesn't. You lose your money on roulette. Risk didn't work out. It's not all the casinos fault for not offering a fair game, its partially your fault for making a risky decision when you had a much safer decision available (going to the casino for money instead of just working overtime)

There. Amen. Nice try though. Whatever other super-snarky immature padding you kids add when you're done with your messages.

Really now, discussing the semantics of analogies is really off-topic and since we share similar attitudes towards mod monetization, I think it's fruitless to continue this line of discussion.

That makes no sense. In what way are they doing additional work? THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN HANDLING NETWORKS! Not additional. Also, there's already no support staff anyway

Additional != Continuing.

I'm gonna let Johan's post speak for itself on this topic. What are your credentials? I have no idea what managing a digital marketplace entails so I don't know who to believe but Johan seemed to have good credentials

 

[Pete0714]

Your personal attacks will get this thread closed.

It seems that some here think that paying for mods would be OK if Paradox didn't get any of it. If Paradox supports you and allows you on their forum for your product then you own them something (I am not say I think it should be 75%).

Others say that mod should be free or they will become bad. Should games just be free?

Others say mods are not as good company content. To this you need to look at some of the mods for HoI3, they are much better than anything I have seen from Paradox. Not that I think the Paradox stuff is bad, it is good, it is just that some of the modders have made mods that are more innovative and better researched.

You do owe them something: gratitude. Beyond that, you paid for those other things already in buying the game, the DLC's, etc. And don't you think the logic that modders are making better stuff than the developers of the actual game indicates that it is they, and not the developers, that deserve the money for their work that they did AFTER paying for the developer's work that they then added to and improved upon themselves?