Reason behind making User Modifications Sub-Forum Private

[Castellon]

...
I don't buy the game until I see for myself how supported mods are and what's the scope of mods being made
...
MODS = integral, important part of PC gaming. companies go out of their way to support and advertise their support of modders and what kind of amazing things modders do with their games. in order to sell better.
that's about it.
...

So on the one hand this policy means we are not expoliting our support for modders and the mods they make and therefore we will sell less games.

Once again you're admitting that user-made mods are now a product that you are trying to sell. I don't understand how you can call a subforum "special rights". Especially when we have always had access to them anyway. So was this a free-trial period or something? We had free special rights to view the mod subforums for the past X years and you've suddenly decided to take away those special rights? Or did you just invent the concept of them being a "special right" in the last couple of months specifically to justify taking them away?

On the other hand this same policy means we are exploiting the user mods and modders.

You see how we just can't win, don't you just love the internet.

 

[P-51]

Are you implying that the two actions are mutually exclusive? I would consider them to be complements.

 

[Castellon]

What TWO actions it is the same action.

 

[P-51]

"Once again you're admitting that user-made mods are now a product that you are trying to sell."
and
"On the other hand this same policy means we are exploiting the user mods and modders."

Not the same, but they work with each other.

 

[reis91]

So on the one hand this policy means we are not expoliting our support for modders and the mods they make and therefore we will sell less games.



On the other hand this same policy means we are exploiting the user mods and modders.

You see how we just can't win, don't you just love the internet.

Yep, especially it's strawmans. There is a difference between "selling" your mods and merely allowing them to be "hosted" (using the term liberally, since the ones I know don't have their files hosted on Paradox, but on external FTP's) without placing any restrictions on them. That difference is exactly restricting access to mod subforums. In other words, you use the ToS of the forum to claim rights over the mods, and restricting the access to them, regardless of the intentions of the mod makers. That is what I believe the majority of the posters in this thread pointed out as wrong, in a model where mods are free content developed by the community.

You are, of course, due to your ToS, entirely able to do this, but you will deal with some repercussions. Mods hosted on external sites, removing traffic from Paradox forums (and defeating the stated purpose of the idea), modders being unable to lend their experience to other games on the same engine, helping out other mod projects in different games, decreasing overall efficiency of the mod community, alienating part of your costumers due to placing new restrictions which are perceived as unjustified, et cetera.

 

[Castellon]

"Once again you're admitting that user-made mods are now a product that you are trying to sell."
and
"On the other hand this same policy means we are exploiting the user mods and modders."

Not the same, but they work with each other.

Those appear the same, because they are. I was restating your position, I think you missed the point of the post.
But you do know that you can access the forum, as you have the game registered.

 

[Castellon]

Yep, especially it's strawmans. There is a difference between "selling" your mods and merely allowing them to be "hosted" (using the term liberally, since the ones I know don't have their files hosted on Paradox, but on external FTP's) without placing any restrictions on them. That difference is exactly restricting access to mod subforums. In other words, you use the ToS of the forum to claim rights over the mods, and restricting the access to them, regardless of the intentions of the mod makers. That is what I believe the majority of the posters in this thread pointed out as wrong, in a model where mods are free content developed by the community.

You are, of course, due to your ToS, entirely able to do this, but you will deal with some repercussions. Mods hosted on external sites, removing traffic from Paradox forums (and defeating the stated purpose of the idea), modders being unable to lend their experience to other games on the same engine, helping out other mod projects in different games, decreasing overall efficiency of the mod community, alienating part of your costumers due to placing new restrictions which are perceived as unjustified, et cetera.

Sorry just not how things work in reality, I mean you would have us believe people are working on mods for games they do not own?
If they are merely giving advice, it may be more harmful then helpful due to changes in the engine since whatever game they do own and are experienced at.

Since by the terms of service anything posted on this forum becomes the property of Paradox and since ALL user mods are based on IP owned by Paradox anyway, User mods are not generally "free content" it is only free to a subset of people, namely those that OWN a legal copy of the game and therefore a license for that IP, and since all those people have a way to access the sub forum, your point is moot. Anyone else that uses a mod is engaging in theft of Paradox IP, if you want to put it bluntly.

 

[Darkrenown]

Bonus means its part of the product, ergo it is being sold.

"access to the sub forum is the bonus, the content is not being sold."

Not sure what you don't get there. You buy the game you get access to the subforums. Subforums may or may not contain mods you like, but the content is not being sold, advertised, or in any way offered. And "bonus" means it's...a bonus. Which means it's not part of the product:

bo·nus
   /ˈboʊnəs/ Show Spelled[boh-nuhs]
noun, plural -nus·es.
1.
something given or paid over and above what is due.
2.
a sum of money granted or given to an employee, a returned soldier, etc., in addition to regular pay, usually in appreciation for work done, length of service, accumulated favors, etc.
3.
something free, as an extra dividend, given by a corporation to a purchaser of its securities.
4.
a premium paid for a loan, contract, etc.
5.
something extra or additional given freely: Every purchaser of a pound of coffee received a box of cookies as a bonus.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bonus

Nobody is claiming rights to anything. But that doesn't mean you're not trying to turn your subforums into a part of the product. And yes you have taken away the traditional setup of the forums that we've had for years. After years of it being standard procedure to have access to user mod forums for games we didn't own, how can act like it is perfectly normal to suddenly take the away without explanation?

If you don't think you have a right to access the subforums without buying the game, why does it bother you that you can't? Our forums are for people who play our games. A game's subforums are specifically for people who play that game. Yes, previously we gave access to anyone, but now we've decided to only open new forums to those with the game in question. You still have access to the previously open forums, so again nothing as been taken from you, we are just not giving access to the new subforums.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

You are, of course, due to your ToS, entirely able to do this, but you will deal with some repercussions. Mods hosted on external sites, removing traffic from Paradox forums (and defeating the stated purpose of the idea), modders being unable to lend their experience to other games on the same engine, helping out other mod projects in different games, decreasing overall efficiency of the mod community, alienating part of your costumers due to placing new restrictions which are perceived as unjustified, et cetera.

+1

I am ready to take a bet that most of these things are going to happen. It seems that nobody have presented evidence so far which would suggest otherwise. This is the core of the problem, not some word play about what is bonus, what is product etc. The service provided for free is now provided under condition of having bought the game. It looks like these consequences were simply disregarded. Remember, profit is priority, not modding community. Who cares that hurting modding activity can hurt profits in the long term? PI apparently does not. On the other hand, tt is entirely possible that it will not hurt profits even in the long term at all, nobody can really say. But this damages modding on this forum and this effect has not been addresed properly.

So the direct question is still here, still not answered - do you think this change will increase number of threads, views, posts, mods hosted etc.?

 

[s1234567890m]

viccy 2
Threads: 2,987
Posts: 67,058
first thread (03-07-2010 )
ck2
Threads: 532
Posts: 9,719
first thread (06-06-2011)

i doubt it

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

viccy 2
Threads: 2,987
Posts: 67,058
first thread (03-07-2010 )
ck2
Threads: 532
Posts: 9,719
first thread (06-06-2011)

i doubt it

ok thanks for the data, I have been waiting for this since I dont have access to CK2 subforum and thus I have not been able to try to prove (or disprove) my claims) - gonna fill it in table calculator today and return with results.

In order to get correct results it is needed to scale these values by total posts and threads in the main forums to reflect the significance and number of people playing those two games. Plus I will of course scale them by the time elapsed from the release.

I hope you are well aware of difference between absolute and relative values.

 

[Marfig]

well done, s1234567890m.

 

[Captain Gars]

Who cares that hurting modding activity can hurt profits in the long term? PI apparently does not.

Obviously we don't think it hurts the modding community if we shut out pirates and people who doesn't own the game - and thus have limited knowledge of modding that particular game.

 

[reis91]

Sorry just not how things work in reality, I mean you would have us believe people are working on mods for games they do not own?
If they are merely giving advice, it may be more harmful then helpful due to changes in the engine since whatever game they do own and are experienced at.

Since by the terms of service anything posted on this forum becomes the property of Paradox and since ALL user mods are based on IP owned by Paradox anyway, User mods are not generally "free content" it is only free to a subset of people, namely those that OWN a legal copy of the game and therefore a license for that IP, and since all those people have a way to access the sub forum, your point is moot. Anyone else that uses a mod is engaging in theft of Paradox IP, if you want to put it bluntly.

Considering you use the same engine for your in-house grand-strategy games, and even in cases when it is a different engine, it is perfectly possible. Gfx can be shared between different game mods (HoI2 and 3), answering questions about LUA, giving ideas and suggestions, etc.

I used the term free to differentiate between DLC and mods. I don't know if DLC is also a part of the equation, if you believe that it is viable, as a business strategy, to hamper mods to attempt to boost DLC sales, going against the Paradox philosophy up to today, about making easily modable games, but that was not the point.

Of course, as I already had said, you have full rights to restrict the access of mods to those who own the game, I'm only questioning if it is a smart business strategy to attempt to do so, when you cannot even enforce it due to the use of external filehosts. You can claim rights to all the mods and start selling them without giving anything to their authors, and it is perfectly legal, as far as I know, but that doesn't mean that the community would accept it.

 

[reis91]

"access to the sub forum is the bonus, the content is not being sold."

Not sure what you don't get there. You buy the game you get access to the subforums. Subforums may or may not contain mods you like, but the content is not being sold, advertised, or in any way offered. And "bonus" means it's...a bonus. Which means it's not part of the product:

It obviously isn't part of the product, but bonuses are often used to sell the product. Not that I have anything against it, but you can also help sell the product by showing the people the bonus they can get if they buy the product, but instead you stuff it into a sealed cardbox, giving no guarantees to the buyer is the bonus is actually worthwhile.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

My concern is not PI profits, my concern is modding. I have been given data I need I and will present you with results later today.

Next we can talk about indicators by which I chose to define "modding activity". I am open to your objections to chosen variables (which are posts and threads right now). I am well aware that modding means more than that and I am ready to include other indicators as well. But without hard data there is no real way of judging whether modding is or is not being hurt by the change. Thread and post count is the only data I have been given so I will use what I can.

 

[s1234567890m]

go nuts

edit release not very first post cba for that for every sub thread

 

[reis91]

No data for Sengoku?

 

[s1234567890m]

should i have?

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

Yeah, thats what I am talking about. Thanks for sparing me of the job. Your table lacks mod posts/total posts, mod threads/total threads ratios which are crucial but only a brief look shows that there has been a vast decrease in activity in mod subforum when we compare for example CK2 and Vicky 2. For every 15 threads in main forum of CK2 we have 1 thread in CK2 mod subforum. In case of Vicky 2, the ratio is 5 to 1. If we look at mod threads/main forum threads ratios for different games, the ratio has been stable for EU3, HoI3 and vicky 2 - around 5 to 1. CK2 has 15 to one.

IMO the ratio will not be that catastrophic after some time because the release fever will fade away and more mods will be developed and discussed. Thats why I suggested to wait at least several months a few pages ago to get reliable results. time will tell how active "private" mod communities will be but the results are not good so far.

Sengoku data would be more useful since the game was released earlier. In case of CK2 I admit it is too early to really say because most people play vanilla and dont mod or look for mods yet.


EDIT: Captain Gars: Obviously we don't think it hurts the modding community if we shut out pirates

Mod threads ratio went up from 5 to 1 to 15 to 1. Lets say this ratio remains the same after 1 year from now. If the rise from 5 (EU3, HoI3, Vicky 2) to 15 was caused ONLY by cutting off the pirates (as you suggest) then it means that 10 out of 15 threads in the main forum is started by a pirate, right? (in other words - two thirds of the thread starters are pirates and these two thirds have been shutdown in mod subforums). I don't think so.