Steam: Paid mods incoming

[Mad Hattington]

So, apparently Steam now offers the possibility to have you pay for mods, starting with mods for Skyrim.
http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/aboutpaidcontent/
Several mods, among them "Wet and Cold" have already taken up the offer as it seems.
Any opinions on this?

[OrcusMcP]

Oh, wow, this is pretty ballsy. We know a lot of game creators are really embracing the mod scene and making modding and incorporating mods easier, but Steam allowing the modders to charge for them? That's some tricksy legal stuff. Unless the base game designers get decision making power over this, I forsee some major blowback.

Is it a good thing? In the long run, maybe eventually probably. Hard to say. A lot of companies will hire from the mod scene (Paradox readily comes to mind), and if you're putting something out there that you poured a lot of blood sweat and tears into then it's only natural to expect a little compensation, but at the end of the day these are mods and you're using the assets and IP of the base game to sell your own version of it. That's legally thorny and will produce a lot of side-eye before it gets ironed out.

[Rodin]

I find it hard to believe that the companies involved aren't on board with the idea. It seems like such a basic legal issue that Steam wouldn't even attempt it unless they were sure.

My bet is that the original creating company gets a cut of the Mod profits. Not a large one, but a cut, and presumably Steam gets one too. The company gets more people playing their game, an additional revenue stream, and the content creators get cash to support themselves while further developing their mods. Wins all around.

But then, I'm an optimist. There's still a pretty significant chance of all this falling down, and a mod would have to be SERIOUSLY good before I'm willing to plunk down an extra $10 or so. As much as I've enjoyed playing modded games, most mods just aren't up to the quality required of a paid DLC. I wonder what the submission process for getting your mod listed as paid content is?

[Mad Hattington]

Right now, I have two problems with this:
1. What's with mods which are based on other assets like SKSE? Can a modmaker just charge money for something he has not fully realized himself? Furthermore, many mods are simply not compatible with each other. Having to pay for an otherwise great mod, only to realize, that it is incompatible with some of your other mods would be pretty sh*tty I believe.

2. Most people won't manage to actually pay for this, especially with Skyrim. I currently have ca. 120 mods installed. If even only a third of those would not be free, I'd still end up paying more for mods, than for the actual game.

Now don't get me wrong, I can absolutely understand that some people invest incredible amounts of time and creativity into their works and I think, that they should have the ability to earn money for their work. But I do not think, that this should be mandatory (and benefit Valve more than the actual modders; at least that's my impression)

[OrcusMcP]

Also, thinking a lot about Paradox again, lots of mods add features that might eventually be patched into the base game. If a paid mod adds those features but then the base game adds them later, how would someone who bought the mod get a refund sicne they don't need it anymore?

[veti]

I'm against it.

Yes, I get the idea that people want to be rewarded for their creativity. Their reward is that, if their name gets out there, they've got something they can put on their resume when applying for the job of their dreams. Apart from that - there's kudos to be had, and that's about it. The key point is - there's not exactly a shortage of mods right now, many of them of very high quality, which sort of implies that extra incentives beyond what's already in place - aren't necessary, at least from the "thriving, prosperous community" point of view. I think this will create a very divisive - divide in the modding community, between those who see themselves as "professionals" and those who do it for the love of it.

The correct way to do this, IMO, is for the game publisher to keep an eye on the mods, identify the best ones, and buy them from their creators at a fair price, then polish them up to their own standards, and release them as DLC. (Isn't that how Knights of the Nine started out? Although I may be misremembering that. But I'm certain it happened with Neverwinter Nights - the community content was adapted into "premium modules", like Kingmaker and Witch's Wake.)

The key point being that, once "officially adopted" and released in this way, it's the publisher, not the modder, who's responsible for support. That's a heavy burden to put on a private individual, but the publishers have the resources to handle it.

[Divayth Fyr]

If they oficially added a "donate" option so people could reward the modders, this would be fine - though I guess nobody would want to use it, since you could donate to a modder's paypal (as it was already happening) and skip giving Valve a cut. As it is, I see more problems than potential gains...

[Eldan]

So, what if I already have those mods?

[Gamerlord]

Blergh, paying for what amounts to third-party DLC (Even if it is really good and is worth the money) that could break or become obsolete with any patch from the game devs and there could be nothing even the creator themselves could do about it does not exactly enthrall me. EDIT: And that isn't even bringing up all the conflicts mods can have with each other.

Also, Steam Workshop sucks as anything except an absolute beginner's first steps. I really do not like the idea of a future where I have to use it to get my mods if this gets popular.

[Dagoth Gares]

Do note that currently the modders only recieve 25% of the profit. Valve gets 75%. For more information, and where I got the news, see Total Biscuit's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGKOiQGeO-k).

[Morph Bark]

I really would like to know how they arranged for this to be possible. This is essentially paid DLC developed by third parties, for which the legal approval by the original game's developer would be necessary. Bethesda has granted approval of mods prettymuch universally, but that was while mods were still free (with perhaps only some mod creators having the option to donate money to them, but not outright paying for their work).

[Divayth Fyr]

Do note that currently the modders only recieve 25% of the profit. Valve gets 75%. For more information, and where I got the news, see Total Biscuit's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGKOiQGeO-k).
According to modders, Valve takes 30% and 45% goes to Bethesda. Also, while the companies get their money at once, the modders get paid once their share reaches 100$.

At the same time Valve started demanding any mentions of donating and donations being removed from mods in the Workshop - which shouldn't be a surprise since they don't get a cut from those.

[AmberVael]

I really would like to know how they arranged for this to be possible. This is essentially paid DLC developed by third parties, for which the legal approval by the original game's developer would be necessary.

It is necessary, yeah. In the FAQ on steam it says this:


It is up to the developers or publisher of each game to decide if paid Workshop mods are appropriate for their game. You will only be able to sell mods for a game in the Steam Workshop if the developers have enabled that functionality.

So Bethesda apparently gave permission for it. No idea what the negotiations were like if that's what you're pondering though.



Anyway, I actually approve of the general concept. If someone basically pours their time and skills into making what is basically DLC for a game (sometimes with even better content than official DLC), I think they should be able to get returns on that if they want to.

The execution though... that's going to be the tricky bit. And so far I'm just laughing in disbelief at Steam's stab at it (75% huh?) We'll see if that changes.

[Rodin]

Yeah, Steam's 75% is...umm...

It's a toughie. Developers picking up a modding team and making a paid DLC/expansion with it is incredibly rare, and it seems like there should be some sort of middle ground between putting your work out there for free and winning that jackpot.

I'm just not sure that this is the solution.

[Murmaider]

Where does TB get that 75% from? On the Steam Page on 'Supplemental Workshop Terms - Revenue Sharing' it says the following:


'The percentage of Adjusted Gross Revenue that you are entitled to receive will be determined by the developer/publisher of the Application associated with the Workshop to which you have submitted your Contribution (“Publisher”)'


So unless Bethesda decided that they don't want any money that number is probably closer to what Divaith Fyr wrote. So, Valve gets nearly a third for just providing a shop(as per usual) and the game publisher gets nearly half of the cut just for quality control(if I read the FAQ correctly it's the publisher who decides which mods get approved for sale) which we don't even know if it is any good yet.

I don't think it will be any good, with mods being released waiting for monetization authorization, like for example:


Extra Apple - Have you ever walked into the Bannered Mare and thought to yourself: "Man, this place could use an extra apple."? Well, worry no longer! "Extra Apple" adds another apple to the counter in the Bannered Mare.

I also wonder how Steam and publishers will react if people start monetizing their mods on other sites. Probably not so well.


On the other hand an additional source of income may incentivize developers and especially publishers to make their games more modder friendly.

[Divayth Fyr]

Where does TB get that 75% from? On the Steam Page on 'Supplemental Workshop Terms - Revenue Sharing' it says the following:
For a long time the only thing we knew was that the modder gets 25% of the income - which is why many, including TB, went with "75% for Valve". Only later on modders who put their mods on the paid Workshop mentioned the cut Bethesda gets.


I don't think it will be any good, with mods being released waiting for monetization authorization, like for example:
Keep in mind that many people made joke mods specifically to ridicule the concept of paid mods.

[Murmaider]

Keep in mind that many people made joke mods specifically to ridicule the concept of paid mods.

Yeah, I guess it doesn't take as much time as I first thought to filter these joke mods out, even if they get voted very highly and get approving comments.

Another problem, which admittedly doesn't apply to Skyrim at all, are games which update regularly, like some games developed by Paradox. Usually whenever a bigger patch comes out for EU4 or CK2, mods simply don't work any more. So if I pay for a mod it could be that any time a new patch hits, I won't be able to play that mod any longer, because the developer of that mod decided for whatever reason to no longer support his mod. And even for those modders who update their mods it usually takes several days if not weeks until they come out with a version of their mod that runs on the newest patch and that, I think, is not something a paying customer should have to put up with.

That's all fairly hypothetical though, because only Skyrim has paid mods yet and that never gets updated.

[Hubert]

Anyway, I actually approve of the general concept. If someone basically pours their time and skills into making what is basically DLC for a game (sometimes with even better content than official DLC), I think they should be able to get returns on that if they want to.

The execution though... that's going to be the tricky bit.

I agree on this. The concept of an easy and streamlined way for modders to be rewarded for their work is interesting, but I can already think of several potential problems:

* They say you have 24 hours to test the mod and ask for a refund if you are not satisfied. The problem is that it may well take more than 24 hours to realize that there is a game-breaking bug in the middle of the mod quest.

* Related to above: if I bug occurs in the mod you paid, you will have to ask the author for a fix/compatibility patch. It seems very unlikely that a modder could support this knowing that basically everyone has a custom Skyrim installation with tens or hundreds of mods.

* Often mods are heavily inspired or directly include parts of other mods. I foresee many complaints about unauthorized use of other people's creations.

[Leecros]

* Often mods are heavily inspired or directly include parts of other mods. I foresee many complaints about unauthorized use of other people's creations.

In fact, there has already been at least one instance of this. Chesko's Fishing Mod was removed because it uses Fore's New Idles assets. Although apparently Fore commented on the page and Chesko didn't get any permission at all to use his assets, causing...multiple problems.

[Mando Knight]

I'll echo the sentiment that the idea was good (good modding work deserves to be rewarded), but the implementation is at best lacking... your mod needs to break $400 for you to see your 25% cut, the modder gets a terrible cut for doing the work of the mod proper (the creation kit is already out there as a free tool, and a lot of the work for items is done on a program completely separate from the ones Bethesda provided... why do they get the lion's share?), Steam Workshop needs a better mod management framework to get me to use it over Nexus or other mod databases, and if Steam disallows the modder from selling it elsewhere for a better cut, I could see even that part falling flat on its face.

[AmberVael]

Where does TB get that 75% from?

Presumably people are getting the information on this page. (http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/about/?appid=72850)


Selling your creations
When an item is sold via the Steam Workshop, revenue is shared between Valve (for transaction costs, fraud, bandwidth & hosting costs, building & supporting the Steam platform), the game developer (for creation of the game and the game's universe, the marketing to build an audience, the included assets, and any included modding or editing tools), and the item creator (including any specified contributors).

The percentage of revenue an item creator receives from direct sales of their item in this Workshop is 25%, as stipulated in the Supplemental Workshop Terms.

Honestly I'm less concerned with who exactly gets that 75%, and more concerned that the modder only gets 25%.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I'll echo the sentiment that the idea was good (good modding work deserves to be rewarded), but the implementation is at best lacking... your mod needs to break $400 for you to see your 25% cut, the modder gets a terrible cut for doing the work of the mod proper (the creation kit is already out there as a free tool, and a lot of the work for items is done on a program completely separate from the ones Bethesda provided... why do they get the lion's share?), Steam Workshop needs a better mod management framework to get me to use it over Nexus or other mod databases, and if Steam disallows the modder from selling it elsewhere for a better cut, I could see even that part falling flat on its face.

Even if Steam doesn't disallow modders from providing other options to get their mod, it would be a problem, as hosting a mod for sale in one place and for free in another simply makes no sense, so so many modders are going to pull it from Nexus or other mod databses anyway, by my prediction.

[McDouggal]

Personally, I'm boycotting Steam purchases entirely. I will also avoid selling items in my inventory.

Valve will not see another cent from me until they reverse this terrible idea.

Something that gives me hope: GabeN hasn't commented publicly on this yet. It's entirely possible that he was given bad information, and will pull a Hatred Greenlight controversy-esque response out.

[Grif]

Sincerely hoping Steam would try and reverse this. Everything I read about this stinks of great idea turned into poor implementation and execution.

[Emperor Ing]

I actually don't see what the problem is. People selling their mods to make a quick buck, and if people want to pay...say...$1 to put roads on their ingame map, that's their decision. Valve taking 75% is pretty ridiculous, I agree, but in principle I think selling mods is okay. I'm certain there's a lot of modders who will still be willing to put their stuff out for free on places like Nexus, and who knows? Maybe Patreon could support modders too, but i'm not going to assume that I, Emperor Ing, know the exact, right, and perfect system for mod distribution.

[Milodiah]

I get my mods from Nexus, and I strongly suspect that all of the nice ones will be gone from there because of this. Also, agreeing on the updating issue...I've seen so many modders just drop off the face of the earth, or at least publicly state they won't be updating their mods any longer. It's just a sad thing to see when it's a free thing, but when money gets involved...

[Forbiddenwar]

Apparently, Valves cut is the same as all dlc, 30%. It's Bethesda who is demanding the lions share of the profit, leaving little for the modders.

This means the distribution rate is likely to be different from game to game. With some publishers offering more to modders and some offering less.

Edit: it also occurred to me that this incentivises game companies to never fix or finish their games, not only will modders do for you but you also get paid when they do.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm certain there's a lot of modders who will still be willing to put their stuff out for free on places like Nexus, and who knows?

That's what donation buttons are for. And those don't require you to fork over the majority to king and church the producer and Valve.

[Emperor Ing]

Edit: it also occurred to me that this incentivises game companies to never fix or finish their games, not only will modders do for you but you also get paid when they do.

This is also true for free mods as well. If you want your game to be finished, you want people to download the unofficial patch, and not get caught behind a paywall.


That's what donation buttons are for. And those don't require you to fork over the majority to king and church the producer and Valve.

And i'm a big proponent of donation buttons. I'm just saying they don't need to be mutually exclusive. Let the gamers decide what they think their money is worth.

[Kalmageddon]

Nevermind the fact that people can put a mod they didn't make for sale.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Nevermind the fact that people can put a mod they didn't make for sale.

Yep. The big problem is that this is going to turn out exactly the same as YouTube copyright strikes: Valve is going to be doing the minimum possible moderation of the system, meaning none at all, because moderation takes resources and that goes completely against the very core of their reason for implementing this idea, which is to make a quick buck.

[Mando Knight]

GabeN put up a thread on /r/gaming (http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/). My takeaway? He confirmed that the developer sets the cuts, but the rabble seem to focus on it being implemented at all, not specifically in the flaws in the system.

[Alent]

I don't understand the anger and outrage at the idea itself. All I can guess is the ill will that Bethesda publishing has earned from their fans for years of abusing the TES/Fallout developers and audience is being directly transferred to this new service.

Being able to sell mods legally without getting a cease and desist sounds awesome. I recall spending years volunteering in a group making a fangame and we always wondered when the cease and desist would show up. Back then we could only dream of the possibility of some kind of official recognition, permission, and ability to profit off our work.

The 25% cut thing is a better share than most developers get from traditional publishing. It's actually an abnormally high cut by publisher standards. I assume mods for games not published by evil companies will see the mod dev get a bigger share.

[The_Jackal]

It's a stupid, terrible, petty, greedy idea that will invariably offer little to no benefit to the authors, but will probably make a considerable profit for Steam itself. Charging for mods is going to severely reduce their adoption rates. There might be the odd wallet-heavy enthusiast who won't mind spending another $50 to mod their game after buying it, but the vast majority of players won't bother. Adoption rates are one of the critical drivers of 'standard' mods. SkyRe or UNP are adopted highly enough that other modders are well-served by integrating their features or being cross compatible. Any individual modder is never going to be able to quit their day job to collect revenue from modding, and then there's the issue of interoperability or quality control. If you're paying for a mod, you ought to be well assured that what you pay for is going to not break your game, but no such guarantee will exist, because it can't do.


I don't understand the anger and outrage at the idea itself. All I can guess is the ill will that Bethesda publishing has earned from their fans for years of abusing the TES/Fallout developers and audience is being directly transferred to this new service.

Being able to sell mods legally without getting a cease and desist sounds awesome. I recall spending years volunteering in a group making a fangame and we always wondered when the cease and desist would show up. Back then we could only dream of the possibility of some kind of official recognition, permission, and ability to profit off our work.

The 25% cut thing is a better share than most developers get from traditional publishing. It's actually an abnormally high cut by publisher standards. I assume mods for games not published by evil companies will see the mod dev get a bigger share.

The 75% cut that Steam gets is HIGHWAY ROBBERY. Why? Because modders aren't just a developer working on a title, they're the producer, writer and promoter as well. The reason publishers get such a high cut is that they're the ones fronting the money to get the title designed, coded, packaged and published, things that Steam is doing ZERO of for modders. If you worked at a consulting company that billed you out at four times your hourly rate, you'd be coming after them with a knife, or if you're a more rational figure, you'd walk out and get a better deal from someone who isn't so insanely greedy.

Bottom line is this: Mods aren't games, charging money for them is bad for the modding community, it's bad for players, the only person it might be good for is the middleman who's collecting 75% of the money changing hands.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

... Steam isn't getting 75%. That number comes from people hearing that for Skyrim modders are getting 25% and assuming all the rest is going to Valve.

Valve is charging the same share as for their other DLC, the rest is decided by how much the developer gets. Valve takes 30%, how much the developer takes of what's left is up to the developer. Bethesda decided to take 45% of the profits. That's on the developer, not the middleman.

The bigger issue is how this is going to affect a) mod compatibility, b) sub-mods (if you want to make a paid mod that requires someone elses paid mod, what happens? Valve allows sharing revenue, but that's a big thorny issue), c) modder motivation (now that it's a job not just for fun), d) free mod availability (as mods are taken down off of competing free sites to only be available paid on steam, it'll cut down on the free site advertising revenue, cutting down on their ability to host free mods).

[Grif]

... Steam isn't getting 75%. That number comes from people hearing that for Skyrim modders are getting 25% and assuming all the rest is going to Valve.

Valve is charging the same share as for their other DLC, the rest is decided by how much the developer gets. Valve takes 30%, how much the developer takes of what's left is up to the developer. Bethesda decided to take 45% of the profits. That's on the developer, not the middleman.

The bigger issue is how this is going to affect a) mod compatibility, b) sub-mods (if you want to make a paid mod that requires someone elses paid mod, what happens? Valve allows sharing revenue, but that's a big thorny issue), c) modder motivation (now that it's a job not just for fun), d) free mod availability (as mods are taken down off of competing free sites to only be available paid on steam, it'll cut down on the free site advertising revenue, cutting down on their ability to host free mods).

This. Emphasis mine. The amount of vitriol Valve is getting over one misquoted figure is starting to border on ridiculous.

I'm more concerned as to how Valve is supposed to filter out fake mods, mods that actively plagarise other freely available mods, or even mods that break games. Currently Valve isn't even handling Greenlight well, and it's rightly pointed out that the chance that they'll curate this sort of system properly is slim to none.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Aye. They have a system for take-down notices, and luckily enough it gives a nice big banner over the mod saying that there's a take-down notice that is being examined for it, but how much effort are they really going to be putting into this?

[AmberVael]

This. Emphasis mine. The amount of vitriol Valve is getting over one misquoted figure is starting to border on ridiculous.
Honestly, I really do think it is less about the idea of Valve taking 75% that bothers people (especially since they're not actually taking it all for themselves), and more about the modder only getting 25%. At the very least I know that's the issue for me.
And frankly, Steam still does carry some of the responsibility for it. In the end they were the ones who negotiated the figure and decided it was okay to run with, launching it as their first and primary example of this new program.

[Alent]

Honestly, I really do think it is less about the idea of Valve taking 75% that bothers people (especially since they're not actually taking it all for themselves), and more about the modder only getting 25%. At the very least I know that's the issue for me.
And frankly, Steam still does carry some of the responsibility for it. In the end they were the ones who negotiated the figure and decided it was okay to run with, launching it as their first and primary example of this new program.

I think the low profit percentage to the Mod author is an issue of industry myopia on the part of Bethesda publishing. I suspect they legitimately believe they're being generous by giving people 25% instead of the traditional 5 to 15%. Traditional game publishing is a brutal business with terrible margins for everyone but the publisher.

I still think it's amazing that this is happening at all.

One of GabeN's responses to the criticism on Reddit really speaks to why they're trying this out:


Sky rim is a great example of a game that has benefitted enormously from the MODs. The option for paid MODs is supposed to increase the investment in quality modding, not hurt it.

About half of Valve came straight out of the MOD world. John Cook and Robin Walker made Team Fortress as a Quake mod. Ice frog made DOTA as a Warcraft 3 mod. Dave Riller and Dario Casali we Doom and Quake mappers. John Guthrie and Steve Bond came to Valve because John Carmack thought they were doing the best Quake C development. All of them were liberated to just do game development once they started getting paid. Working at Waffle House does not help you make a better game.

I'd bet the guys at Valve are thinking "It would have been great to have this back when we were still mod authors". It's sad that Bethesda's insistence on being an evil traditional IP holding publisher has sabotaged their attempt at trying to uplift and help the mod community.

[Hubert]

One of GabeN's responses to the criticism on Reddit really speaks to why they're trying this out:

Even if many people at Valve come from the mod world, there is a big difference between working on stand-alone mods that only have to interact with the original game (like DOTA) and working on mods that have to play nice with the other hundreds of existing mods. If a bug is detected in the DOTA map, it is "only" a matter of fixing it or finding a workaround. In the case of a Skyrim mod, you would have to first determine if the bug is caused by your mod, another mod, or a weird mod interaction. If the bug is caused by a mod interaction, who will be responsible for fixing it?

As long as I install free mod, I reckon I do it at my own risk. If there is a big bug I cannot bypass I just uninstall the mod, no hard feelings. If I had to pay for the mod my expectations would be different.

[Grif]

And frankly, Steam still does carry some of the responsibility for it. In the end they were the ones who negotiated the figure and decided it was okay to run with, launching it as their first and primary example of this new program.

Oh, I'm not absolving Valve of responsibility. They really dun ****ed up this release with their cryptic comments, and the subsequent PR mishaps, as well as failing to consider the implication of such a scheme would have on previously free content.

It's the sheer amount of vitriolic rage all over Reddit, chans and even here that gets me scratching my head.

[Psyren]

The 25% cut thing is a better share than most developers get from traditional publishing. It's actually an abnormally high cut by publisher standards. I assume mods for games not published by evil companies will see the mod dev get a bigger share.

It might be a high cut but the base is going to be low, because even the best mods are not going to command a very high price compared to the cost of the game itself.

Having said that I don't actually have a problem with the idea behind this, and I'm seeing a lot of whiny entitled gamers on social media that think this means there will never be free mods again ever and demand that modders should only be coding between Waffle House shifts and panhandling to make ends meet.

[Frog Dragon]

Pretty much. Making mods is a lot of work, and they are a product. The reason they've been free thus far is an accident of copyright law. That modders are comfortable charging for their work and some people are apparently paying for them should be reason enough.

However, the current setup seems to be rather inequitable in a lot of ways. While Steam doesn't take 75%, it's still rather off-putting that the actual modder only gets a quarter of the profits. While it was pointed out earlier in this thread that gaming industry profit margins are often pretty thin in general, in the case of a mod it's generally one person or one group of people doing everything from start to finish. For them to get only 25%... well that's a deal you'll only take if you can't get anything better, which is indeed the case due to Steam's pseudomonopolistic position on the PC-gaming market.

The worst part is though that right now they do not seem to have a handle on the people going to sites like Nexus, taking other people's mods and reuploading them as their mods behind a paywall. If Valve isn't willing or able to institute the controls they need to curb this problem in its infancy, they shouldn't be allowing paid mods on their distribution platform. Valve has to be able to run its platform better than this. Content theft, especially content theft that they profit from, is unacceptable.

[Divayth Fyr]

In general the problem is less in that any money is charged - although after nearly 13 years of Bethesda giving people modding tools and stating that mods must be free (they specifically forbid people from selling mods) it is understandable that people can be upset and reluctant to accept the change* - but the execution is terrible. Between the cut given to the modder, the fact that they're only paid after their share reaches a 100$, the non-existant refunds (a 24 hour period with the money being given to your Steam wallet only is a joke), the lack of real quality control of any sort (the launch had mods that: required you to cheat in the items added - even though making a crafting recipe or placing them in the world is laughably easy; mods using assets the makers don't allow to be used in paid mods; there is also the terrible track record Valve has with early access and greenlight) not to mention problems that may arise for the community...

*it doesn't help that it came largely as a surprise and just about every time the topic was brought up for discussion on Bethesda's boards the consensus was that this isn't the way to go

[Gnoman]

Let's look at one fairly obvious reason why this was a bad idea, looking at Fallout 3 because it best illustrates the problem. Fallout 3 has a fairly limited selection of ammunition available, so if you want to add a new gun, you either have to have it use one of the very few rounds available (unpalatable if you're adding in a RW weapon) or add in a new type of ammo. If you take the latter route, that ammo will only work in your weapon - if John Doe adds an FN Five Seven and Jane Doe adds a P90, they would both have to add 5.7mm pistol ammo - and John's bullets wouldn't work in Jane's gun unless they collaborated. To alleviate this problem, a base mod called CALIBR was developed - it turns FO3 ammo into the RW equivalent and adds most RW (and some classic Fallout ammo that didn't make the transition to F03) ammunition into the game, so all a mod maker would have to do is fiddle with the spawns.

With paid mods, there's three things that could happen. Mod makers could require use of a free CALIBR for their paid mods, CALIBR could become a paid mod (very unlikely in this specific case), or modders could ignore CALIBR and just add in whatever. Option 1 is the ideal, but there are issues with permissions and such that wouldn't exist in a paid version. Option 2 would be very bad, hurting the free mod community a great deal, as they'd lose the interoperability ability unless they wanted to require a paid mod. Option 3 would mean pay mods were worse than free ones.

The entire idea is a huge headache.

[Psyren]

I agree that the biggest problems with this are being able to potentially charge for mods that you don't own, and mod dependency issues if a given mod becomes the basis for a lot of other mod work (including free mods), and either is or becomes paid.

And offshoot to both points - what happens when creator X stops supporting paymod Y, then modder Z picks up paymod Y and continues to release updates for it? who's entitled to the dough at that point? And what happens if creator X comes back into the picture? Do they get back-royalties? Can they pull their mod if they're dissatisfied, and if so, what happens to the updated version put out by the other guy?

But the alternative - giving neither modders nor the original developers no way to profit from their work save for passing the collection plate around - is becoming less tenable as games become more expensive (and expansive), and modding them becomes more complex/time-consuming. So while I still think there are (a lot of) kinks to work out, I support the idea prima facie.

[veti]

This is also true for free mods as well. If you want your game to be finished, you want people to download the unofficial patch, and not get caught behind a paywall.

The Unofficial Patches are the work of so many different modders, it'd be a nightmare to try to paywall it. You'd need to get agreement from every single one of the modders whose work has gone into the patch, which is to say something like 200 people, many of whom you have no way of contacting. And then you'd have to figure out how to split the money between them.

I find this reassuring comment on the USP's FAQ (http://afkmods.iguanadons.net/index.php?/topic/3581-frequently-asked-questions-about-the-project/):

Will the unofficial patches ever cost money now that Valve and Bethesda are allowing paid content?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: The unofficial patches are a community driven effort in probably the purest possible way. It would be wrong of us to attempt to capitalize on that by suddenly shifting to a for-profit model for these patches. Even if there were to be some super simple way to remove all of the logistical and legal barriers to trying it, we still wouldn't do it. Put simply: It would be wrong on so many levels. So no. The unofficial patches will never cost money. They will always remain free.

If we are involved in the effort to generate unofficial patches for Fallout 4 and/or Elder Scrolls VI, those will also remain free.


The worst part is though that right now they do not seem to have a handle on the people going to sites like Nexus, taking other people's mods and reuploading them as their mods behind a paywall. If Valve isn't willing or able to institute the controls they need to curb this problem in its infancy, they shouldn't be allowing paid mods on their distribution platform. Valve has to be able to run its platform better than this. Content theft, especially content theft that they profit from, is unacceptable.

Are you saying this has happened?

If so, then my respect for Valve just dropped by about 50% (on top of the approximately 20% hit it's already taken from this project). This is easy to police. There aren't that many mods queuing up for admission to the store, there aren't that many sites that distribute them - and even if there were, hello Google. There is zero excuse for a single pirated mod to have scored sale 1.

[Murmaider]

I thought the developer of the game(in this case Bethesda) is supposed to decide which mods get approved for monetization. So I think you can blame Steam for putting the system in place, but it's not entirely their fault if paid mods are not properly curated.

[veti]

I thought the developer of the game(in this case Bethesda) is supposed to decide which mods get approved for monetization. So I think you can blame Steam for putting the system in place, but it's not entirely their fault if paid mods are not properly curated.

The publisher is always responsible. Morally and legally. They can't weasel out of that. The best they could do would be to create some kind of DMCA-like takedown system, like YouTube, but there are quite well defined rules about how that has to work if it's going to protect them. (And even then I don't think it would, because they obviously have a specific contractual relationship with Bethesda, who are the ones doing the actual posting. But I'm no lawyer.)

But my question remains, is there any evidence that the mods aren't properly curated?

[Divayth Fyr]

But my question remains, is there any evidence that the mods aren't properly curated?
Something like this (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=125814712) counts?

Though it doesn't really seem to matter anymore. (http://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218) YAY!

For those curious, a test (http://imgur.com/gallery/bqcla) of several of the original pay-to-play mods.

[Psyren]

Those comments lol. Looks like the pitchforks and torches will be brandished for some time to come.

[Divayth Fyr]

They most certainly will. Alas, the one lasting effect of this whole fiasco will be the negative impact on the community as a whole - too many people (on all sides - the opponents of this solution, the ones who were defending it and the modders themselves) showed their nasty sides, too much harsh words and vitriol was poured for this not to be the case...

[Azimov]

I have been holding off on commenting because trying to cleanly and clearly get across my point on an internet forum for something like this is hugely difficult. But I am both hugely for the idea of modders being able to make money doing what they do, and completely against the implementation and monetization put forward.

When i started learning to mod I was welcomed into the community with open arms, by hundreds of modders, all eager to throw time at me, to help me get started. I have been invited to join teams, recieved offers of training, and read and used huge quantites of freely available material. Paid for Modding, in the method (briefly) implemented by valve had the potential to kill all of that. Every experience I have had with the Modding Community (admittedly for Civilization, rather than skyrim) would have been put at risk, and a great many excellent mods which exist would simply not have been able to be made in the first place if it were not for the open sharing licences used by almost every single modder.

I have personally created mods which I simply would have been unable to make without being able to freely borrow from Mod creators with much greater skill and experience, re-using their code and throwing them credit (both in the code, and in the mod description). The current climate of Mod creation in Skyrim facilitates the creation of mods rather than hampering it. Forcing modders to work in insular, small teams, unable to use the community resources looks like it would simply lead to worse quality mods being produced. To those who would say that no one was forcing the sale of mods, As the situation was I could, without issue legally donate to a mod team for their excellent work. Under the paid system it very much appeared that there was about to be a moratorium on any kind of that behaviour.

Finally, the cut for the individual creators is an issue, for me at least. Bethesda and steam already got paid for the mod. The game was sold and shipped. I cant use or create a mod without a legal copy of the game, thus, you got paid. If a mod i create uses 100% custom textures, maps and voice acting then there is very little reason for bethesda to really see any of the money. You did no work, took no risk, lost nothing, spent nothing, got paid for the game sale. Steam taking a (proportional) cut is entirely reasonable (hosting fees and the like), Bethesda asking for a licensing fee is... well its still reasonable (and legally correct) it was just catastrophically enormous. Letting modders create free content for you, then letting them sell it and charging 10% would have garnered a heck of a lot less hate from everyone concerned.

Mod communities sell games, they sell the successors to those games, and a real and thriving mod community can be one of the things to take a good game and turn it into a super-hit (heloooo Minecraft!). I know that I for one purchased Civ5 purely on the strength of the Civ4 mod community, figuring that they would turn it into something I enjoyed playing even if the original game turned out to be less than stellar. If bethesda do not attempt another paid mod fiasco, I will buy there next game in a heartbeat, because the community will move with it, and make it into an incredible experience as long as there is something to work with. I feel like I have used a heck of a lot of words, and still feel like I have my foot in my mouth.

Its dead, I'm glad its dead, I hope the next time someone implements it, its better. I think a donation, or indie bundle style payment method are both critical to the fundamental success of the idea. I also think that the publisher will be sad when they discover how much the average customer thinks they deserve for content created by someone else.

[Gaelbert]

Valve's implementation was poor and I'm happy they reversed it, although I find it hard to believe they couldn't see the backlash coming. That being said, I hope this doesn't prevent a Valve or some other company in the future from coming up with ways to reward large, high-quality modding projects. I'd love to see some better mods bundled up (or not, depending on the size of the mods) and sold by the publisher as some sort of "Official Community Expansion," after they've received polish and the modders have worked with the devs to insure stability and performance. I can definitely see some of the Skyrim world expansions as being just as worthy of my money as Hearthfire or Dawnguard.

[Psyren]

@ Azimov - I agree with your points above, particularly about the atmosphere of sharing among mod creators that this could hurt.

I did want to comment briefly on this point though:


Finally, the cut for the individual creators is an issue, for me at least. Bethesda and steam already got paid for the mod. The game was sold and shipped. I cant use or create a mod without a legal copy of the game, thus, you got paid. If a mod i create uses 100% custom textures, maps and voice acting then there is very little reason for bethesda to really see any of the money. You did no work, took no risk, lost nothing, spent nothing, got paid for the game sale. Steam taking a (proportional) cut is entirely reasonable (hosting fees and the like), Bethesda asking for a licensing fee is... well its still reasonable (and legally correct) it was just catastrophically enormous. Letting modders create free content for you, then letting them sell it and charging 10% would have garnered a heck of a lot less hate from everyone concerned.

The idea here is that devs being able to get a cut of the mod sale is added incentive for them to create and support friendly modding tools in their games. You would think that just pointing at Minecraft and Skyrim and saying "that" are reason enough to justify development time on those tools, but those engines were relatively painless to mod anyway. This would instead be incentive for them to crack some of the more difficult nuts that are out there or being created.


Valve's implementation was poor and I'm happy they reversed it, although I find it hard to believe they couldn't see the backlash coming. That being said, I hope this doesn't prevent a Valve or some other company in the future from coming up with ways to reward large, high-quality modding projects. I'd love to see some better mods bundled up (or not, depending on the size of the mods) and sold by the publisher as some sort of "Official Community Expansion," after they've received polish and the mentors have worked with the devs to insure stability and performance. I can definitely see some of the Skyrim world expansions as being just as worthy of my money as Hearthfire or Dawnguard.

Agreed - not every company is Blizzard, that can just afford to test and release high quality content updates for free months and years after release. For some it really is a choice between "try to help the mod community" and "work on the next product," with the returns from the latter always being higher. If the mod community for a game is active/lucrative enough, they can more easily justify having a couple of guys be the dedicated liaison to the modders and helping them iterate on their products. It can also serve as a pipeline of talent into the industry, as Gabe pointed out when he mentioned how many Valvers started as modders themselves.

[Alent]

I'm kind of sad to see the paid mod system gone, but I'd rather see this than see Bethesda shamelessly profit off their community's work, I guess.

It is a pity that copyright law is so messed up that special licensing provisions like this or the OGL have to exist for mod authors to make money on their work. It depresses me to see hard working people forced to panhandle on patreon or abuse ad.fly links as a workaround.

[Forbiddenwar]

I'm kind of sad to see the paid mod system gone, but I'd rather see this than see Bethesda shamelessly profit off their community's work, I guess.

It is a pity that copyright law is so messed up that special licensing provisions like this or the OGL have to exist for mod authors to make money on their work. It depresses me to see hard working people forced to panhandle on patreon or abuse ad.fly links as a workaround.

I'm sad to see it go too, but find the idea of 25% 75% split to be far more equitable than other industries. Modders are creating derivative works based on copyrighted art and code and lore of an established company. I'm surprised that they got 25%, to be honest. Try self publishing a Marvel comic. It was a great experiment and there seems to be some good news, if I'm interpreting the official statement well. They recognize that starting with a game that already has a community built on free mods was a mistake. There may be something to this idea in future games.

I'm left wondering about the timing of this experiment and the effect it may have on the Bethesda presentation at E3.

[Alent]

I'm sad to see it go too, but find the idea of 25% 75% split to be far more equitable than other industries. Modders are creating derivative works based on copyrighted art and code and lore of an established company. I'm surprised that they got 25%, to be honest. Try self publishing a Marvel comic. It was a great experiment and there seems to be some good news, if I'm interpreting the official statement well. They recognize that starting with a game that already has a community built on free mods was a mistake. There may be something to this idea in future games.

I'm left wondering about the timing of this experiment and the effect it may have on the Bethesda presentation at E3.

Print media publishers are horrific with numbers like 5% profit margin for the author. :smallsigh:

I noticed that allusion in the statement, too. I have hopes that some indie studios will release mod-able games and get to use something like this to help market the games and build strong communities. This sort of thing has indie roguelike written all over it.

[Forbiddenwar]

Print media publishers are horrific with numbers like 5% profit margin for the author. :smallsigh:

I noticed that allusion in the statement, too. I have hopes that some indie studios will release mod-able games and get to use something like this to help market the games and build strong communities. This sort of thing has indie roguelike written all over it.

Worked for Dredmore.

[Maquise]

I have a sinking feeling that the damage has been done, and it will be a long time, if ever, before the ill-will that has accumulated in the last few days will be lifted.

[Rodin]

I have a sinking feeling that the damage has been done, and it will be a long time, if ever, before the ill-will that has accumulated in the last few days will be lifted.

I doubt it. It was a misstep, but it was quickly reversed and an apology given. Was Blizzard's reputation irreparably damaged by the real-name Battle.net name thing? At the time it happened, it was the apocalypse. Within a couple months, it was pretty much forgotten.

This one is going to be like the Oblivion Horse Armor. It won't be forgotten, but only the most hardcore detractors will use it as an active reason not to buy anything from them.

I am surprised at the company-level myopia though. The Internet (Gamers in particular) has a long history of going of going berserk over making something paid which was free, or even making something free which was previously paid. It was a quagmire they should never have mired themselves in, and I'm glad that they at least had the good sense to abort as quickly as they did.

[veti]

Finally, the cut for the individual creators is an issue, for me at least. Bethesda and steam already got paid for the mod. The game was sold and shipped. I cant use or create a mod without a legal copy of the game, thus, you got paid. If a mod i create uses 100% custom textures, maps and voice acting then there is very little reason for bethesda to really see any of the money. You did no work, took no risk, lost nothing, spent nothing, got paid for the game sale. Steam taking a (proportional) cut is entirely reasonable (hosting fees and the like), Bethesda asking for a licensing fee is... well its still reasonable (and legally correct) it was just catastrophically enormous. Letting modders create free content for you, then letting them sell it and charging 10% would have garnered a heck of a lot less hate from everyone concerned.

I agree with everything you wrote.

But I'd just like to take this as another opportunity to plug the "publishers take over the mod" working model. A 45% cut - or heck, let's call it 60%, why mess around - would be more than reasonable if the deal included Bethesda taking the mod in-house, polishing it up to their standards, and maintaining it thereafter. Of course that's a lot more work on their part, but in return the mod buyer would have some guarantee of basic quality.

I saw a review of some of the mods that made it onto the short-lived paid list (it's linked above, somewhere - ah, here (http://imgur.com/gallery/bqcla) it is), and it was clear that there was absolutely no quality control whatsoever going on. That's a huge issue.

[Azimov]

I have always been a massive fan of the basic concept of "If you see a successful mod, bring it into the official fold" suggestion. In theory at least, things like Dota simply should never have unfolded the way they did if you have a company actually watching their own playerbase. If you find a popular mod in your own game, with a huge number of people using it or playing it, you should by all rights of common sense try and... i don't know... DO something with it. Why the heck Dota 2 didn't happen years ago, and before League or Heroes is just beyond me (to use an example).

If Steam and Bethesda are serious about modders using their work as entry into the industry then their resulting model should probably focus around doing just that, rather than looking like a zero effort cash grab (Just to be clear, I'm not saying it was, just that... well, it hardly looked good).