Readable size for those curious :P
https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/4426812413_bd584e8fc2_b.jpg?h=407&w=650
Comment has been collapsed.
So TL:DR people got mad and didn't even know why they were mad- the usual stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you miss the point here- valve is trying to keep any additional money on their side. Steam wallet is one-way transaction, you can't transfer steam earnings, let's say from the market back to your credit card or paypal.
They first introduced market- sell your unwanted junk and buy junk you want. Simple but they made some errors like that ultra rare Ursa german-hill-billy set which costs 2k€ on market? (opening price ~9€ if I recall it right).
Then, valve broke the TF2 market with untradeable stuff, it worked as second hand and decentralized selling almost ceased or rendered most 3rd party services unprofitable.
Later on they decided to remove random drops from dota, bound items with players (untradable/not usable in crafting), and added huge cooldown for selling items on market - the douchebaggery dick move level on this is like you'd pay random person 100 $/€ for not hitting you, he'd hit you hard, then you pay him extra 1000 $/€ for more.
I mean, sure they need to maintain service and all but that's calculated with game prices, licenses and all the stuff regular John Smith doesn't want and need to know to play his games on steam.
Not to mention games like TF2 or DOTA2 are valve owned tittles... so, they really got pure profit out of selling hats and cosmetics (worthless 27€ set which got one smiley and an annoying dog? bold move, gabe the fucking baller in da hauz)
Comment has been collapsed.
something that has been free and most pointedly COMMUNITY driven and NOT publisher driven, is now being monetised by primarily for-profit companies, and you DON'T see how this is a bad idea? The fact that publishers are now looking to take control away from gamers and tightly rein it in, doesnt sound like a problem to you? For years this has been OUR thing... gamers for the love of games making and distributing cool mods, but now valve wants to get in on the act, dangling a carrot to try and essentially be THE portal for the modding community, to control it, and to make it THEIR cash cow... how is this not a bad thing.
Its getting annoying saying valve has done so much for gaming... they really haven't... all they've done is set things up so that the bulk of pc gaming now revolves around THEIR sphere of influence.. ANYTHING good thats come from them, has only been a by-product of their planning to be THE major influencer of pc gaming... and anything theyve done that benefits us, they can (and in some cases currently ARE) take away from us. All valve has done is make sure that they control it, and now they're starting to show what they intend to do with it. Make it restrictive, and make it pricey. People complain about EA and how they're all money-driven... but holy crap, valve is now trying to monetize MODDING and is being a driving force in region locking and price manipulation...
Comment has been collapsed.
Unless they force modders to put up a minimum charge, the publishers and developers aren't able to take any form of control.
The point is, if the modding was truly about the community spirit, then the modders won't opt to charge for their content. If they do decide to charge, then the community spirit assertion is flawed. Perhaps they never monetised before because they never had a centralised audience and reliably moderated payment service? There was nothing stopping modders from charging for their material before Valve did this.
They're not charging to list mods. They're not enforcing that people can only list their mods if they are for sale. They're opening an option. Yes, an option with only a 25% cut for the uploader, and that opens a big can of worms with the problems of derived or adapted content, but an option all the same.
The anger being directed solely at Valve is ridiculous, when the game's developers are required to okay the request to allow mod sales, and the modders themselves have to be willing. Where is the anger directed at those people? It is so disproportionate and so misdirected that it's ridiculous.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just the start, can't you understand?! Soon modding tools will be paid DLCs, and only third-party DLC flooders remain. Simple as that! Money will corrupt then kill modding. These guys are already not modders, as they sell DLCs.
Comment has been collapsed.
Easy to do such logical errors here, but on the other hand, previous experiences do suggest that things could go downhill quite fast. DLCs and early access did produce quite negative affects to the gaming industry in larger scale.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lets say that what you say is somehow true...
...how is this Valve's fault, again?
Offering the choice to charge for something isn't the same as enforcing something across the entire of the gaming landscape. Valve are a big player but they aren't the arbiter of all gaming, especially not game CREATION. If you (and others like you) were truly concerned about this slippery slope subject, why is it not raised in its own thread and aimed more globally, instead of hidden in the shadow of this completely different subject and focused solely on Valve? Because it's simple doomsaying on a bandwagon.
I wonder how many of the people who share your sentiments were among the many who scoffed at those of us during the full boycott of Origin during their original EULA controversy that granted them nonspecific access to all your data? THAT was a subject that stood to serve as a dangerous snowball, showing companies exactly how readily the customer base would swallow severe liberties taken hidden in EULAs. This is utterly nothing in comparison. If you really cared about what it would do to gaming as a whole, why isn't everyone focusing on the PERCENTAGE that the modders are making compared to Valve or Bethesda? Or the content rights issues that will arise, leaving lesser known modders without a penny even if their material is used, and the potential uphill journey they have to dispute the sales?
No, instead the hate bandwagon is focusing on "I don't want to pay, and it's all Valve's fault" instead of the actual important issues underlying the move, and to be honest, I find it pathetic. Disguising your own greed as righteous fury isn't uncommon, but it's pretty transparent when there is next to no focus on the actual damaging issues at hand.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because valve is the driving force BEHIND THIS. thats why its valves fault. They've decided they want to control modding, and they're using their platform (essentially using money) to BUY it. This has nothing to do with greed, people are just incensed that something which has always been (at the risk of sounding insanely corney) by the people and for the people, being essentially bought out by valve so that they can have it. THIS is what people are pissed about, not PAYING for shit... people pay through the nose for dlc, paying for shit isn't the problem, its that valve is attempting to buy modding and have expressed their desire to monetize it and profit from something they didn't create, just because they have the means to flash their cash and their power around so that they can control it.
And again, please don't bring up that silly 'valve isn't forcing anyone to sell their mods' rubbish again... as I and no doubt many others have said, money is an attractive carrot to dangle in front of people that even set out just to make mods for fun or for practice... offer someone a large chunk of cash for their efforts and people are naturally unlikely to shun it... doesn't mean these people are self-centred or greedy, just practical.. and thats why mods will slowly start moving away from places like nexus, and under valves control.
Comment has been collapsed.
So basically Valve is at fault for offering the option, but the developers and the modders get a free pass 'just because'. Glad we cleared that up.
Valve can claim absolutely zero power unless the modders themselves are willing to give it to them.
If they are willing, it's none of your damn business. Kick and scream all you want, in the end, nobody likes change. Either accept it with grace and wait for the situation to stabilise, or flounder in your anger and serve as an ongoing reminder for why gamers are considered to be so entitled.
Again, your notion of "by the people for the people" has already been blown out of the water by the simple act of all these modders instantly attaching a price-tag. It shows that it was never that simple. While there are those who were very much in it for making cool stuff for the community, others were simply lacking a reliable way to monetise and were happy to take the opportunity. Being angry at Valve just for operating as a business while utterly disregarding the complete lack of force used is why the anger is ridiculous. At no point are modders required to charge for their work to have it listed in the workshop. They are not penalised in any way for not charging. Therefore the only problem that remains is "I don't want to pay, but instead of being frustrated with the people who actually charged for it, I'll be angry with the browsing medium!". Because really if your objection was the things of actual substance (such as the pay rates and content issues) that would have been the focal point, and not just stamping your feet because you don't like change.
And no, it's not silly to point out that there is no force being used, because as long as modders aren't being strong-armed into a bad situation, there is nothing rational to object to. Unless of course you presume to dictate exactly how a Valve can expand its service. Yes, its service. The ability to charge for your workshop content is a feature FOR modders. One that has a bad profit margin, but still a feature.
The direction of your blame is utterly misguided in its narrow focus.
Comment has been collapsed.
I typed out quite a chunk of text countering your points, but realised there's little point trying to argue with someone so loyal to a company that they could never see any wrong in anything they do. It's fine if you view this as capitulation or a lie because I can't counter it, im not fussed...
I would like to address one issue you bring up though... that this is about money and my dislike of paying or whatever.. it really isn't. What im so angry about, is that valve is a company. Like any company, its goal is profit maximisation above all else and not doing whats in the best interests of others. It is self serving. And i dont hate valve for that, its their PURPOSE to make money, and i dont begrudge any company that does that. But as a consumer - more than that, a participant in the gaming environment, it concerns me whenever a company thats only goal is to make money, starts to gain more and more power, and take control over it. This is never good news for any consumer, any user... forget gaming for the moment, its never a positive thing for users in ANY environment. Valve has announced its intention to control every facet of pc gaming so that nothing happens without their say-so, their fingers in the pot.. i find that pretty scary, to have one company with so much power, and be so driven by greed. Again, I dont begrudge them for it, but I don't see the merit in lying down you like you are and just saying 'well whatever, its what companies do, so who cares' I love gaming... thats why I care when a greedy company tries to take control over it.
Comment has been collapsed.
"but realised there's little point trying to argue with someone so loyal to a company that they could never see any wrong in anything they do"
Yeah because it's not like I actually cited my reasoning or anything. But hey, disagreeing with you means I'm just a blind fanboy, right? You do realise that by the same confirmation bias I could just claim you're a "hater" and that there is little reason in me talking to you because you will never admit that Valve isn't satan incarnate? So seriously, please, just stop that. :P
"Valve has announced its intention to control every facet of pc gaming so that nothing happens without their say-so"
Source?
But, see, now what you're discussing is a completely different subject to the one we were previously addressing. I fully agree that it's a bad thing for any one company to be so far ahead of the competition that they can start taking liberties, and I believe that competition between businesses is the best way to create an environment where customers can benefit the most. However that's not what we're discussing, at least, not you and I. I was pointing out that the rage regarding the modding monetisation issue is utterly disproportionate and unduly focused on Valve. If we were in fact talking about how Valve's success can in fact be a bad thing waiting to happen, or how they are in a unique position where they could abuse their power, then I would probably be in general agreement with you. But we're not, so, I disagree. :P
You seem to be reading far too much into the modding subject, and given your worries, couldn't any form of expansion of Steam be interpreted as a hostile or potentially destructive move in a similar way? Wouldn't the only alternate be to downsize, reduce in function, or willingly stagnate?
Comment has been collapsed.
ask someone 'hey, wanna make your mods free, or would you like to sell them and make $5 for each sale'... yeah... no ones holding a gun to their head, but you are unbelievably naive if you dont think a lot of talented modders are going to move away from free modding and shift towards selling them.
and no, the anger at valve is NOT rediculous... valve are the driving force behind it - its their brainchild. publishers are just doing what they do... saying 'sure, why not' to a new revenue stream, but this WASNT their idea to take community modding, and profit from it.
It just boggles the mind that no matter how restrictive and destructive valve becomes to pc gaming, how poisonous their money grabbing schemes are, that people NEVER want to dole out any blame to them. THIS is a really really evil move, and its SO bad for pc gaming. Whats next, no direct servers? everyone has to pay a fee to play multiplayer games? how about a monthly fee to access your steam account.. just how far are you willing to let valve go in their ever tightening control over pc gaming?
Comment has been collapsed.
If they move away from free modding towards selling them, then as I said, the notion of "Modding is all about the community!" was a false one, and was only free because the modders lacked a reliable way to monetise their work. In this case, the anger should not be directed at Valve for giving them the opportunity, but at the modders for putting their work behind the paywall.
Focusing on Valve as the source of all evil in this situation is akin to if a modder sold their works using Paypal, and instead of grouching about the modder's choice to do so, you instead claimed Paypal is the root of the fall of gaming. Now, the actual rates Valve are using here are totally up for debate and do seem ridiculous, but that's not what people are focusing on, at all. People are just stomping their feet because Valve is a big meanie for letting modders decide this for themselves.
You're also slipping into strawman territory, implying that I am blind to any wrongs done by Valve simply because I offered counterpoint. Don't do that, please. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
paypal arent a vendor, theyre literally the bank of the internet, moving currency from a to z and taking a cut, valve is an integral part of buying paid mods currently, theyre the only game in town with not even the nominal competition theyve got for virtual sales of games/dlc, paypal closes tomorrow my steam buying will in no way be affected(i use paypal though my debit card works for steam albeit with a couple of extra steps)
Comment has been collapsed.
It works as intended for the example.
In the case of purchasing mods for the games, Steam only acts as a medium through which the workshop content is purchased, and money is ferried between the consumer and the modder. All that Valve have done is allowed the sale of a new kind of product, and while it sucks that the product was previously offered for free beforehand, they are still not the ones that choose whether or not a pricetag is attached. They are simply the banker in this case.
Which was my entire point. The anger in this situation is massively misdirected, and to hound Valve for this so exclusively suggests that people feel entitled to dictate what they can and cannot offer the modder community, and also perhaps that the modder community itself cannot be trusted with the capacity to charge for their work.
Comment has been collapsed.
there is a MASSIVE difference between someone using paypal to get donations or sell their works, and a profit driven company setting out to be a controlling force in modding... the fact you cant see that due to valve devotion is the reason i made me supposedly strawman statement... And as i said, valve is offering a carrot... its all well and good to set out with good intentions, but when someone is offering easy money, all those intentions give way to practicality. Again, theres a huge difference between starting out for a reason, and then turning away from easy money when its being offered even though you weren't initially looking for it...
Companies trying to take over and control modding is one of the most destructive things to ever happen to pc gaming... its kinda sad to see you defending them for it and saying its not a big deal...
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot of people is addressing the wrong problem, "paying" for mods or whatever wouldn't be a problem itself the problem has to be searched elsewhere.
I made a few hats (distributed for free but that is my choice) for Guns of Icarus Online. Mods that drastically change things in games are another thing.
The problem of monetization is that with that the market rules kick in: "easy to be made" fancy stuff made by less people possible will be privileged over game mechanics, time consuming mods that require collaboration of many persons by new modders (long time modders will probably stick to community/passion). Not to mention that monetization creates competition where before were collaboration with the possible outcome of modders fleeing from big projects to start a bunch of very similar ones at the same time.
This whole controversy would have not been there if they did a small humble thing: ask the community beforehand. As many stated so far all they had to do was to set up a Donate button to support authors. If you thought the mod was worth donating for, you'd donate, otherwise you'd not.
Finally, I'm ok with the revenue split, modders are using a distribution service (Steam) and work on pre-existing finished (supposedly) products (retail games). It is then right to give credit (and revenue split) to the people that make possible for you to make and distribute your work.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have never had a problem with a 'donate' option.
but, again, masssssive gulf between one company attempting to own modding (which is whats happening), and a facility for people to voluntarily donate to modders as much as they want for their efforts (which would have been perfectly reasonable).
And as for the revenue split, you have to realise just how much modding does for a games SALES in the first place... so a measly 25% for keeping a game alive and driving its sales, is... come on, I really hope that even you have to admit it A LITTLE BIT, pretty damn stingy for all the benefit modding alone brings publishers and how much it already lines their pockets...
To sum up my feelings, the facility to donate would be fine (id totally support that), but a for profit company deciding it wants to own and control modding, is something I'm against on principle.. purely on principle, im really not fussed about the whole having to PAY thing, its just the principle of one company thinking they should be allowed to buy it and own it is what i find so upsetting.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Steam Workshop idea (and mostly realization) is a great thing for the modding community. For the first time there have been a UNIVERSAL framework, easily implemented through the Steam framework, on games. The workshop have (mostly had, but issues still remains) its problems but overall is probably the most efficient way to distribute, control and update mods for a game.
The fact it is owned by a company means absolutely nothing, they are just the distribution, it's up to developers/modders what to do.
As this whole system costs, mostly in terms of support and control, it's alright that part of the revenue goes to support who keeps the system alive and kicking.
About the "original" developers' revenue split (which is the biggest part), modders make changes on existing products that costed the "original" developers years of work (not just hours or days just like mods) and that is why they deserve the majority of the (eventual) revenue.
And as I stated before, I'm talking as a "modder" (few hats but still costed me a bunch of hours of work) and as open-source code contributor, meaning I know what community means and that I'm not "siding" with evil powers xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, dude, seriously here. This is going to sound patronising but please take this with a pinch of salt.
Take a step back. Breathe deep. Re-examine what you're saying.
"one company attempting to own modding"
Seriously. Stop and rethink exactly what you're asserting here.
Valve is not attempting to get a stranglehold on all modding.
Yes, it will make it easier for modders to monetise, and that will cause an initial pull towards Steam, but there is no way in hell that a modding community as huge as Skyrim's is simply going to pledge allegiance to any one modding index just because they made it easier to set up a price tag.
Comment has been collapsed.
You dont really think that they'll stop with skyrim do you? You don't really think VALVE, of all companies, won't try to do deals with other developers do you? This is valve we're talking about, and their only interest is to their own wallets. If this trial goes well for them, they'll go after this big time...
You ask a publisher if theyd like people to give away content for free, or if they'd like to profit from it, which direction do you think they'll lean? Do yo think theyd care more about the community, or partnering with valve to make sure they get their cut? In your previous post you made a big thing about 'how can you blame valve for looking to make a profit'... likewise, how could you honestly believe publishers will not look to ways to ensure modding becomes another dlc-type revenue stream for them? After all, its usually them that controls modding functionality, tools, and if all else fails, bringing in the lawyers to stop mod development. Perhaps you genuinely don't realise how greedy publishers and distributors like valve are? (again, not blaming them for that, just stating it) The only reason we've had modding this long, and its been so untouched, is that no one had ever tried to monetize it on the scale that valve is now attempting.
Comment has been collapsed.
(sorry for the tl;dr)
Yeah, I totally expect them to expand this. I also don't see it as such a terrible thing unless the modders themselves unanimously fuck it up.
This isn't nearly as simple as developers blindly going "YES GIVE US FREE MONIES". A developer could quite easily decline on the basis that steam is profiting further from their product, and instead issue an update for their game that cuts out the middle-man by creating their own marketplace for mods (both free and paid). That depends on whether or not they want to fork out to host the content and all the downloads that might occur, as well as moderate content disputes.
Your point about litigation to prevent sales is actually a point FOR Valve's system. By being officially okayed by the developer and the hosting provided for by Valve, they don't have to worry about those technicalities. You're right that they wouldn't have been able to monetise it on this scale before now, which I didn't fully consider until just brought up, but that doesn't automatically mean this is going to be a crushing blow to modding. It certainly carries a danger of complicating things, but we have to see exactly how this unfolds before we start crowing the doom of all creativity, here. My point about the direction and focus of the anger only grows stronger though. In this case, Valve only acts as the medium between the developer and the modder (as well as hosting the content and moderating disputes). Why then is Valve still the sole focus of the ire? It doesn't matter who thought up the idea nor which company approached which, both are in agreement of this trial run. While Valve may seek to expand the offer towards other developers, again, an offer is just an offer, it requires the agreement to work, and the consent and will of the modders to even put it to use. You can argue that they are facilitating something terrible, but you need to recognise that just because something CAN be abused and be a detriment, it doesn't automatically mean Valve will instantly abuse it and oblitorate all modding. Outside of the hyper-reactionary "Valve is evil" bandwagoning that we've seen in recent months, what reason do we have to believe that Valve will deliberately mishandle this for their own gain? The trade safeguards that are only an inconvenience? The fact they finally got around to actually raising awareness of (and enforcing) regional keys on the store pages? Are people really forgetting that Valve seemed quite lax in these regards? Aren't people aware of the duality of grouching about trade waits while also grouching that they hate bots?
While you have been tripping over some food for thought on the sidelines, you still haven't really addressed the matter of the fixation on Valve. Being concerned that any one company has so much influence and power is a very valid concern, but again, that's not what I personally am addressing. It's the anger and venom. Provided that Valve are not strong-arming anybody then any power they accumulate is done through the consent and knowing agreement of the others involved. That is not something that warrants such genuine chimpish anger. Criticism? Yes, in all things! Concern? Hell yes. Doom-chants of how Valve is horrible and should be spammed and screamed at? Not really.
My focus is the tone. Rage is not constructive, and only serves to deafen people to our actual lucid points. We cannot appeal to Valve's better judgement by organising attacks, nor by spamming pages upon pages of fresh threads that each say the same thing. My only concern is that people calm the fuck down and think about this rationally instead of looping around in mental acrobatics about why Valve are going to eat all gaming. Only once we're all sober and have given the system a chance to settle in can we really make any constructive progress on the subject.
Also, yeah, again, Valve is not attempting to 'own modding', and the only way they can ever be a threat of doing such a thing is if people make it that way. If you really feel this is a threat, you're better off appealing to the content makers than saying "Hey Valve, you should stop trying to offer a unified service" :P
Comment has been collapsed.
It isn't a community decision. Content creators have the absolute right to do with their material as they wish, and shouldn't be locked out of selling it just because half a million random nobodies said they don't want that person to be able to sell, forcing them to either keep it free or find another place to monetise it from. Donations are acts of grace, purchases are acts of necessity. Both are valid. Donation buttons would be really useful but they're a separate issue from this one. A purchase is an enforced minimum access ante, which is an option that should be afforded to content creators.
While I agree that things get complex when competition is added into the mix, you also have to consider that something being free also applies a heavy pressure. Unless a paid mod is of exceptional quality or an incredibly low price, it will be utterly unable to compete with even a mediocre free mod. From my brief glance over at the Skyrim forums, there were a number of modders announcing the retraction of their items from the workshop, going back to various hosting sites in protest, and keeping them free. One thing that people are totally overlooking is that we can only get an accurate picture of this a little way down the line, once prices have stabilised and the true economy of the situation emerges. I would have personally felt that quality control was a far bigger issue (and that any presence of expensive, poorly made mods would devalue the pay-mods substantially by mere factor of risk).
And here we are again, finding that the real underlying issues with Valve's decision aren't anything worth rage or venom. It's good to see calmer points still being made amidst the torrent of rabid "Valve is horrible!" rioters :P
Comment has been collapsed.
In what way is Valve "controlling modding"? By enabling mod creators to make a buck off of their work? Oh no, the manipulation..
What if a modder uploads both a paid and free version of a mod, so that people can try it out, and then buy it if they enjoyed it, to reward the creator? What's so insidious about that? What if a modder uploads a paid mod on the Workshop, and a free version of it on, say, Nexus, so that the modding community can benefit from their work, while also earning revenue from the Workshop sales.
To my knowledge, both of the above scenarios are allowed by the Steam Subscriber Agreement, and unless I've missed something essential, it seems to me that this controversy has been blown WAY out of proportion.
What people SHOULD be talking about are those ridiculously low rates. Mods increase the lifespan of a game, and improve the experience of the player, so earning only 25% from the profits on a mod is not nearly enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
YEAH being on a steam giveway site discussing there only a small segment of PEOPLE who dedicated time to create it in the first place... Also in comparison with the scrupulous P2W and F2P models out there they atleast allow you to enjoy aswell modify game to your liking and make money of it aswell. Aren't you embarassed calling these endeavors cashgrabs?
I think they've been the most honest incentive we've seen in decades :). Not only do they seem to understand the power of community and the longetivity for their projects it also motivates people who've been modding in the first place.
Can you really look down upon asking for payment when they supply you with all the tools, the know-how and the ability to profit from said product and become a bit more accustomed to what making games or modding them is about. It's not just the code you know when you use their method of understanding it
If you are making a complete standalone game based on a mod, go for it but why should people with original idea, assets and intellectual property? Go look at PixelBeam game based on Unreal engine 4
My crystal ball say Unreal Engine 4 will render all F2P models obsolete. I've grown up with the engine and so have many people, they basically just gave me a job in ICT/PLC/Computing for free oh and I get money for my changes to something I love doing.
AND I make them money too
Quality control through it's users and free marketing?
Yeah....
FUCK YEAH gaming is still much "very our thing" if I understand that phrase correctly. Gaming has simply evolved to a more mature segment in both gaming, performance, community, activity & access aswell fame, skill and dedication.
Whilst I understand people hold their game/lifework very dear to their heart it takes true passion to make something thrive and many helping hands make hard work a bit easier.
DOTA/CSGO does this neatly (Don't play Dota, only played warcraft/diablo) Recently bought CSGO and whilst amusing it's also innocent and doesn't impede other players their gameplay or satisfaction all the while allowing the game to thrive for decades on a community bursting with ideas. I think it's neat from developers they do market voting to allow items. For a modder it doesn't seem that interestig though.
You can't change config settings on the engine side much with CSGO
Only skins whilst competition thrives on mechanics, addons, maps, support for play, gamemodes
I could only truely support a stand-alone mod if it was well received by the developers themselves and a longstanding community (Garrys mod comes to mind)
Is profit a bad thing? Moneys good man, competition drives people and in FPS/Arena/PVP games that may make them able to survive.
It's just how it's managed.
IIf you truely fear for the modding community, that's cute.
You should rant on Nexon and ALL early access basically making you pay for an unfinished product which you have no choice in. Well if you like spending 50 dollars to fill in surveys and votes for Alpha/beta/Full release games which have neat mechanics but prey on money rather then surviving. People should pay you to test their games and if they want to make a solid game there will be communication.
These engines are the pinnacle of that.
Imagine making addon for a game
and they steal it cause you have no rights to it anyway, it's nor your game.
Other people sell it because you can't claim it.
Or simply coming back to a game a few years after it's alpha release and noticing cash shops, restrictions and a complete overhaul of the game systems every year with not real intention of making the game grow (as modders, fanatics and lovers do)7
Actually you should be ashamed and go play outside because you don't even realize how spoiled your ass is complaining about these OPPORTUNITIES..
To give you a true F2P example and a little thought:
Look at Wolfenstein enemy territory which was released for free around 2000 and had a LAN running last week. An expansion for Return to castle Wolfenstein released for free.
Dozens of mods, server settings, configs, learning code/engine, maps, skins, weapons and support for LAN :) and players hosting forums/servers to this day.
Take that in mind, something you've created survives and grows to unbelievable size all the while you're not making any money from your games...Games cost millions, thousands of hours and an understanding.
Now recently Splash damage teamed up with Nexon to bring Dirty Bomb, a competitive FPS which shows resemblance when it comes to gameplay it takes aspects from Wolfenstein/Quake wars/Brink/CS/COD and has had a very high interest in competition from the very beginning. However their monetization and lack of social relations to the community is basically making a bad reputation for it (great game though). Basically mercenaries are expensive and no ability to mod the game at all besides server configs ofcourse (which get banned anyhow up to a point)
But they released it on Unreal Engine 3. Seemingly a bit odd when the new engine isn't that old since full F2P release but understandable, habits are hard to break.
At first I was like sure, they are familiar with it, they made this completely F2P game 15 years ago and I played it and learned the engine with it basically so fuck yeah i'll support them, i'll just give feedback and we'll see changes.
Now I understand why they didn't on Unreal Engine 4. It would mean they had to leave all their developer tools, graphical/3D packs in hands of the player, which are in this case a large segment had aready played Wolfenstein and contributed to modding it to smittereens
And can you blame them?
Solid games take millions upon millions for even their initial phases
It's extremely rare to see success when you are alone and having no funds.
Whilst I disagree with P2W games or games with a shop it's only blatant asking price is to buy a merc at a very high price but at the same time it works as early release
Monetization is a growing issue in gaming but to put the fault at these engines is absurd.
Comment has been collapsed.
And in reply to quality control I hold my games up to the standard of Total war mods
On a sidenote:
Tekken 7 will use Unreal Engine for 3D rendering/GFX processing I believe which is a shame because the game series could turn a legacy if they release developers tool for maps, competitive modes, characters, clothing, moves voted for throug hcommunity (its a fight game, it's only comp play that makes the game)
But in this case the lifework of a man the past 20 years... I wonder where the engine will go
Comment has been collapsed.
Dont forget the very many legal issues involving taxes abroad. Or the fact that most if not ALL modders submitting things to the paid workshop are violating numerous copyrights and license agreements, such as 3dsmax, blender, photoshop, and so on. These people typically use the free to use version, or a cracked version, to create content, which was fine, legally, mostly, when making free content. This changes drastically once you charge for it, requiring that people buy a commercial license costing several hundreds of dollars depending on the software package. Also add that fact that creating something like a star wars "inspired" skin, will be pursued legally once it starts being sold. AND, as you mentioned, people are taking content they didnt work on, and slapping their logo on it and tossing it on the workshop for sale. AND, what happens with colabs, how does that get broken down? What about the fact that a user needs to make 400$ in sales before they are even paid, and once paid, its steam credit only, but are still taxed on it as earnings in the US?
This whole thing is a GIANT can of worms that shouldnt have been opened. People are very concerned, and rightfully so, that devs will just slap together a wireframe engine and some basic modding tools and then release it as a finished game, leaving the paid to mod community out to finish it. Or that previously free content/mods will be completely abandoned and put behind a paywall. Then there are mod dependences and quality issues and the list continues on and on.
Comment has been collapsed.
"People are very concerned, and rightfully so, that devs will just slap together a wireframe engine and some basic modding tools and then release it as a finished game, leaving the paid to mod community out to finish it."
If developers started to do that, do you really think that people would buy their games? Skyrim was hardly an example of a barebones game that was only made robust through modding, This is a real stretch of the imagination here, can't we just stick to the actual problems and facts instead of manufacturing absurd slippery slope problems?
Comment has been collapsed.
Except that people are stupid enough to buy into early access and pre-order digital releases with no published information. So yes, I think people would buy, in essence, an engine. It would continue along the current progress we have been seeing. With the number of stupid consumers that dont give two shits beyond, "ooo pretty moving lights and flashing text tell me to buy", a company is heavily incentivized to do the bare minimum to rake in the most money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that's some people. However, most people only purchase Early Access games and pre-orders when they have seen gameplay footage and a reasonable amount of the game's surrounding design. Yeah, that's a risk, but so is any pre-order to a lesser extent. What you're describing here are gestures in good faith, which can actually be refunded if the games fell sufficiently short enough of what they advertised.
Yeah, companies take shortcuts and really take customers for a ride sometimes, but that's a far cry from trying to pass off a barebones engine and expecting the community to mod in the content itself. It would result in massive outcry and recall, unless it was the intention of the game in the first place. To be honest, some games have had success with that model (Project Spark, GMod, SecondLife). What you're describing is a company trying to pass off such a thing as a complete game, and that simply wouldn't fly. Hell, even if they didn't outline it properly on the store page people would be given refunds, as Valve have done in the past for games that sold on false pretenses or even failed promises (H1Z1, for instance).
Allowing modders an in-Steam option to charge for their work isn't really an indicator towards some random exodus towards a GMod styled gaming culture. As I said, it's a bit of an absurd false alarm generated by the disproportionate anger surrounding this issue, and even in the event that the gaming industry did take a turn towards user-generated core content, that wouldn't be Valve's fault. :V
Comment has been collapsed.
People bought Evolve, which was an essentially barebones game.
Comment has been collapsed.
One where there was no expectation of modding, and was multiplayer centric. By this logic, doesn't any game lacking singleplayer fall into this category?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, but companies started stripping more and more from their games and selling it as DLC because customers were for the most part fine with it. They did it to the point where they basically sold a shell, and charged for DLC. Is it really far fetched to think companies might start doing that with paid mods? At the moment, yea...but as they test the water more and more? I honestly don't know. I wouldn't think so, but then again, 10 years ago I didn't think game companies would be selling games that are 95% DLC either. shrugs
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, well there is always a danger of companies trying to take more and more shortcuts. That is definitely something worth keeping an eye on, and 'voting with your wallet' by abstaining (and spreading your discontent), but that's really not an issue related to the Valve modding thing we're seeing right now. Skyrim is a pretty huge game before you even touch the mods, after all.
I agree that the price point of the mods are ridiculous right now, but I'm putting that down to teething pains. It's like seeing an app store where all the fresh faces are trying to charge $10 for unpolished little apps that do very little. Right now we're in a sort of "gold rush" phase, where people are running off to the mountains with happy dreams of striking gold. Once they realise that the money-grabbing approach only yields dirt, they'll have to re-evaluate. Many will realise that the $100 payout mark from Valve is unrealistic and go back to free modding (with perhaps a premium version for a small fee), or they'll drop the price to microtransaction levels.
Ultimately, the person who decides the price will be the customer, by showing them (with their wallets) exactly how much they're willing to pay. Rage can fall on deaf ears, but money speaks volumes.
Comment has been collapsed.
and once paid, its steam credit only, but are still taxed on it as earnings in the US?
Wait, what? Are you sure it's only paid as credit? That doesn't sound right...
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems I was mistaken. Mod sellers do get paid via bank to bank transfer. Anyone receiving a refund from a mod purchase though will only receive steam wallet credit apparently. Valve has also stated that they can limit users if they perceive them to be abusing this policy. IE no more 24hr refunds on paid mods at their discretion.
Comment has been collapsed.
That limit is because apparently some users were trying to arrange a mass buyout and then refund simply to be trolls.
If they do abuse their customers by denying a refund they rightfully should do, then I agree that its an issue. But until they do it, I would say its more of a precautionary thing.
http://imgur.com/gallery/uMSk20c
Comment has been collapsed.
It is a good think ONLY if Steam regulates quality and compatibility of mods. Otherwise, it will be a complete fiasco.
Maybe Bethesda and the like should start buying some of the better mods and sell them as an upgrade to the base game. I'm sure the modders will love having their stuff made official -- great resume padder -- and they'll get paid something.
Comment has been collapsed.
like valve bothered to regulate greenlight? with its grass simulator goodness? valve doesnt give a shit about quality, all they want is to maximise profits and to hell with the mess they create in pursuit of that.
Its terrifying the culture they're creating here... and they have so much power and control, publishers will take notice. Valve wants to own and monetize modding... publishers and developers, as long as they get their cut, will be happy to let valve run the show and to hell with how it all turns out... they could even take modding away from free modders, and make it exclusive to steam and its workshop.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're preaching to the choir. :)
I don't have any faith whatsoever that Steam will do the right thing. As much shit as EA gets, at least they do reasonably well in quality control and they do have good after-sales service. Valve doesn't even pretend to care.
Comment has been collapsed.
They want the community to regulate the mods. They're basically asking the users to do their jobs for them while still taking a cut for the non-work they do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Imagine you sold items on eBay or Amazon or whatever, and they took 75 fucking % of your profits... yeah its like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not true, because if the original game (costing millions of dollars to produce) didn't exist then your mod would not exist either. Your profit would be 0%. No programmer or artist working for these companies get even close to 25% of the sales for their work, do they?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sales of said game wouldnt be as high without mod support. Its akin to selling paint and canvas with a partial picture started. Games like Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas ALL, would not have sold as many copies if they were unmoddable. Yes, they would certainly have sold copies, but the bug filled messes left behind w/o the modding community picking up the pieces would have drove away many customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
If electronics/computer were not invented, no one would be profiting off it at all, should we cut them in as well?
Comment has been collapsed.
If you were to use their factory and their raw materials to build and then sell your own computers, then yes you should pay them a percentage.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because one thing is an antecedent to another, it does not follow that the owner of the first product has a right to its derivative. That was my point. In this case its much more murky as there are IP rights involved, so the question is what is the fair cut for the dev/pub's if they're to sell the mods. However I lie the donation idea over purchasing anyway, but ofc they wouldnt...
Beth gave up their involvement in add content Skyrim some time ago, if they wished to make more money from DLC they should have commissioned more DLC themselves. This now is a sad attempt to capitalise on the hard work of modding community, which has kept their game alive years past its vanilla 'use by' date, . They want to cash in after they already made their profit from the increased game sales due to modding, while doing none of the work themselves.
Id almost go as far to say that they deserve nothing, if the modders were to make some money. Personally if i donate towards someone making content id want most, if not all of it going to the ones doing the work...Not the shitheads who've done piss all for ~2 years.
TES is one of my fav franchises, I preordered OB and would have Skyrim too, had i been in the country at the time (i got it within a week of release). In future I will be waiting a while after release to see their what their "plans" are... Im really worried about the state of TES VI now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve is not taking 75% of their profits.
Whatever they do take is just a cut of the sales from an electronic program. Its not really the same as selling an item on ebay.
Ebay actually takes a cut off physical items, which are typically limited in numbers and have a cost associated with the manufacture of each one. Even Paypal, which is usually used with Ebay, takes money for just transactions. Not actually doing any work other than being a middleman. But people still use it, because its still worth the security of using it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Didn't say Valve kept the whole thing, and they do deserve a cut, as they made the system, host the files, distribute, advertise and whatever else.. But other online stores do that too, so why are they not getting 75% too. The fact its digital and no phyiscal goods is irrelevant, should all downloadable content be treated that way? music, games, ebooks whatever... all those artists and developers, "oh you only get 25% now, at least its better than nothing".
Comment has been collapsed.
The difference here is that there are IPs involved. The modders have no way of selling it otherwise. Here, they have the option of paying the game developer a royalty in exchange for being able to profit from their IP. Yes, I agree that a lot of games are only popular due to mod support, but a lot of mods are also only popular because there is a game in the first place. Its just how the patient law works. Sometimes its useful, other times its just silly and we can just watch and laugh at how badly it fails. I already agree that the ratio of distribution is not right. I was just pointing out that its nothing different from what Valve has done in the past. I think most app stores like iOS also have a 30% cut, or at least thereabouts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you pretty much there, but I very much doubt Beth is gona hand over a percentage of the profits from increased sales to modders, they shouldn't get to blatantly exploit and double dip so easily, esp with no effort on their part. It clearly isnt abut fostering a vibrant modding community, Imo Beth have their opportunity to make their own DLC to profit from. I'm not against monetisation of modding, but strongly disagree with the approach and defiantly the percentages.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well some people mention that is up to the game's publisher to determine what cut the modders will get. But yet to see and articles or reliable source to believe.
But if it true then we might see other publisher giving bigger cut to modders.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hope so. It would require a lot more human attention, but a large mod that is made primarily of new content (new models, skins, music, items, etc) should naturally be given a much larger share of the profit given the degree of work and side of the mod involved. Whereas a smaller mod that used mostly stock assets that came with the game would naturally owe more to the developer.
That seems like a pipedream though. Proper negotiations regarding this would potentially take a lot of manpower and time, and you know they're not going to diver that much resources into this. Still, it's early days yet. It could still be a good thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well thats what someone posted earlier.
source , so seems that Valve takes the usual cut and publisher determines who will get the rest. Now I'm not surprised that Bethesda saw that Valve is doing fine with getting 75% of the dota/cs:go and tf2 revenue so they tried the same for mods without thinking why is working for Valve.
Comment has been collapsed.
No matter how little a mod costs, a paid mod would not have a fraction of the downloads the same mod would have if it were free.
I doubt it will have a lot of positive impact, if this keeps going, the vast amounts of small mods will be a bit forgotten while people with their limited wallets will focus only on the big famous ones. Not a very good thing, having a smaller and less prolific community, even if the mods would supposedly have a better quality, I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its okay, we have ads poking in the free versions of mods now! Isnt that AWESOME?!
Comment has been collapsed.
oh boy, here we go again. This argument again that dota2/tf2/cs:go hats are ok but not paid mods.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/33p8o1/paid_mods_lets_make_things_clear/
tl;dr: they are DLCs as they are subjective to strict guidelines to follow. They will not break on any patch the game has been pushed with, will not conflict with another "dlc".
Comment has been collapsed.
I reckon they are both all right.
Hats/skins are less likely to break things like you pointed out, and a lot simpler.
If a mod is not likely to break things, and the developer is required to keep it upto date with the current version of the game, I don't see any issues with that mod.
Comment has been collapsed.
This thread was about the steams share from the earnings from the mods. Since from what I read this is what most people who accepted the idea of paid mods had an issue with. What it has turned into is an argument between whether paid mods are a good idea or not. Even if we were to talk about paid mods being a good idea, all this does it give a platform for people to charge for their mods. I honestly doubt that people are going to have any success in charging for their reskins and low quality mods. I can see some really good mods being popular, but then don't you think that the high quality work deserves to have an option to make the creator some money?
The way I see this working is.. there will be a rush of people trying to sell their mods, and most will come away disappointed. If they originally did it to share their work with other people, they will make it available for free again. If not, then its their choice. All Valve did was give the creators more choice. And as far as I am concerned choice is power. Yes, it might end in the consumers spending more on their game than they originally did. It might also end up with there being a lot more quality mods since people feel that there might be money to be made. I already said that I feel its a bad idea to start this with an existing game. They should have started with a fresh game with no mods.
Honestly, while I think that some of the mods are pretty cool, I don't see myself paying for those mods. They are simply not good enough for me to spend money on them. On the other hand, some mods like the original DOTA, CS, etc in the past have been good enough that I would have spent money on them if I had to.
Personally, if I were a mod creator faced with this choice, I would consider how much do I expect to make from this. If its a low quality mod, I would probably put it up for free since I know its not gonna get me much money. If I had a great idea that I consider would be popular, I would be more willing to spend my time and resources and making it, since I know the mod will probably sell and earn me some money. I don't see this reducing the availability of free mods in the long term, but I do see this opening up new paths for people who have some great ideas and would be more willing to make those ideas a reality based on this new system.
I don't see the whole situation from the point of view of a mod creator or a gamer. I see this from the point of view from the community, which includes them both. Yes, this will generally be more favorable to mod creators than the players, but on the whole, I do see this as a positive thing. Of course, like I already said, there are a lot of things wrong with the current system, and probably a lot more things will go wrong that I have not even considered, but the idea does have serious potential.
Edit: I do agree that they need to ensure that the mod will work with any patches made to the game. If I pay $10 for a mod, I expect it to work with a future patch. I don't care if the patch gets released in 2 days or 2 years. Since I paid for it, it needs to work. Especially if part of the money is going to the game devs, they share the responsibility to ensure that it stays working. If it stops working, there needs to be a refund issued.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got no issue with steams share of the earnings from this. As someone who sells stuff online I know that you aren't getting anywhere unless people 'know' about your product. The amount of exposure these mods are getting from being on Steam is incredible - you'd have to pay an insane amount for that kind of advertising, and in those terms Steams cut could even be considered a bargain.
And as the makers of the game and the framework that the mods exist in Bethesda are obviously entitled to some kind of a cut from these profits (although whether it is fair is something else, especially given how much the free mod community has contributed to the success of the game).
But maybe you should have called your thread 'Is it fair that Skyrim modders get 25%?' - because when you ask 'Skyrim Mod Fiasco - Is Steam really at fault here?' I'm having all kinds of other opinions. I think this whole disaster has been handled incredibly clumsily by Steam and Steams cut of the profits is the least of the problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I think my biggest problem is that this may actually mean less high quality mods. The more complex mods that add significant content often start out buggy and may depend on other modders work. They get developed with community feedback. They are often the first to go wrong when games update or new official DLC is released.
With this new system if people if people are paying for mods then they are going to want them to work 'straight out of the box' or else they are going to be asking for their 24hr refund. If the mods stop working later there is going to be hell to pay. Modders aren't going to want other modders profiting from their assets when previously they would have been widely used within the community.
I think it actually does give modders an incentive to flood the store with a lot of cheap cosmetic mods that won't cause problems instead of attempting more complex mods that would be of benefit to others but also a lot more risky. It is too early to say for sure how the better modders will handle this - but so far it isn't looking good...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the modders will be disappointed if they think that cheap cosmetic mods in a single player game is gonna earn them much.
In a multiplayer.. sure. But not in a single player.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cheap cosmetic mods clearly aren't going to make a lot of money individually The problem is that I think this system is still going to favour people knocking out a lot of cheap mods rather than people making good mods.
If someone tries to put a lot of effort into making a good mod with interesting content that adds significantly to the game and then tries to charge a fair price for the work they put in (+75%) then they are going to have to put up with people moaning that they could buy a full game for that price, people asking for a refund because they found a bug, people moaning when a game update breaks the mod, a lot of hassle getting permission to use other peoples assets or making everything from scratch, and a whole bunch of other problems besides.
For the same amount of time somebody could knock out a hundred cheap fancy sword mods. And probably make more money overall for a lot less hassle. I'm not saying everyone is going to do that - but I suspect a lot of folks are going to be tempted.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main problems with paid mods are the use of assets other people have made and people uploading free mods to steam workshop as paid mods when they're not the original authors. One of the paid mods was removed within 24 hours because it used animations made by another modder and that modder didn't want them to be used in paid mods.
According to the NexusMods posts, some modders hid their creations on Nexus to avoid having other people upload them on the workshop and charge for them. With the paid mods being a thing, those who choose to keep their mods free have to keep an eye on the workshop all the time to make sure that no one has stolen their mod and charging money for it. The paid mods have caused a lot of fighting in the modding community and that's not a good thing for modding. Many mods probably wouldn't exist if they weren't able to build on the work of other modders.
I'm fine with content creators getting paid although their cut should be much larger. However, I will simply not use most paid mods because they add very little to the game and are not worth the asking price. Especially since the modders have no obligation to fix the mods if an update breaks them. Personally I wouldn't use Steam Workshop for modding Bethesda's games anyway because you lose some control over the mods, which is required to get the 100+ mods working without issues.
I do think that some mods should remain free, such as the unofficial patches that fix bugs in the game. It could potentially lead to the mentality of "let the modders fix it" in game developers as they wouldn't have to do the work and they'd still get a cut from the mod sales.
Comment has been collapsed.
accepting what steam does or refusing that shitty system the way people do now is letting them win. modding wasn't something of their ground. it's just not their ground. modding = players for players. it's all between players. and they want to make them and big companies earn money over the work of others, over what's totally not their business, what doesn't belong to them at all, and what should not belong to them
from there everyone should tell them to GTFO. when a costumer buy their game then it should be over and no more money should be involved afterward. this isn't respected by today's shit dlc standards. people would buy their game and it's done. they'd then be able to get mods from the other players of that game, shared freely for the overwhelming part. some were asking donations for them, on non-official related websites, or just went through opening discrete donation system after people asked them so. then the donaters had to think about donating by themselves and search for the donating page, and not be prompted to, right in some official game pages, in the most crucial places : mod pages
perhaps they made this so dirty they knew the crowd would frown over this and say GTFO, and expect people to ask for a donation button instead, at the same spot, because they'd (people) be scared still that this would happen for real and feel like losing despite the appearences of winning with the "GTFO" spam. and there steam/valve would have won. because a "donation" button would also be prompting people to spend money on their pages, and therefore make steam/salve and publishers earn shitload of money.. through their customers who would be then working for them, and paying them for fixing and/or improving the game they bought from them yet, with surely the same stupid 25%-for-author cut. that's be the same thing worded differently. players maybe then would be able to get mods with an optional payment, but it wouldn't change anything
this has to stop and it should come back to what it was before. at last they would have won and earn money from games sold and then earn money again out of player's own efforts/work to fix and improve the game.. and earn even more because it would make free advertising for the game for them with all the famous mods that would become widely known and advertised on websites by players themselves.. and make even more people buy the game and mods.. just like how it's now, but with them htiting all the money.. and we'd then be just starving of free, shared mods, unlike how it had always been and should always be
Comment has been collapsed.
Unless the modders opt to add that pricetag, then it's :
Modding = Creators for customers.
It's up to the individual modders. Expecting it to stay free forever just because that's what you're used to is a little presumptuous.
Comment has been collapsed.
Never been a big fan of mods and do not understand the fuss about payed mods. Everybody keeps saying that it's players for players and what not, but I assume that modders are still free to ask $0.0 for there mod. So basically Valve offers people who do not feel like working for free (which would be most normal people) to get some money for their hard work. Valve of course keeps a percentage for the use of their platform and customers like any other company on earth (again, working for free is not how the world works. Russia tried it, did not work).
As long as modders can still offer their mod for free it's just up to the mod community to not ask money for it like before. Maybe even work around the system by uploading a mod twice, one free and one 'payed' donate version or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
The walls of text lol :x TLDR .
Personally i think people are being whiny bitches here ... it looks bad , it may be bad for awhile ... but i can see it as a good thing.
Answer me 2 Things .
1st , is it mandatory to ask money for a mod ? "not really"
2nd , how much did the mod creators used to get before that came to pass ? "0%"
Yes it needs some serious work about the way it actually functions , but i can see it as a good thing .
Not to mention there is a really simple solution to it all .
IF you dont like a mod , dont buy it.
People are free to throw they garbage for whatever price they want , but no one force you to actually buy it .
Comment has been collapsed.
Then there's the whiny bitches who whine about whiny bitches.... And the whiny bitches who whine about whiny bitches who whine about whiny bitches... Ohh damn, look what you made me do :P
Comment has been collapsed.
^.^ seriously tho ... thats a bit to much of an overreaction to whats happening for me .
Its not like anyone is forcing anyone to actually buy that stuff , so as long as that its the case , any arguments are invalid .
The only issue i have with it atm , its putting someone elses mod for sale ... thats kinda bad .
Aside from that , im all in for actually supporting the Mod creators directly trough steam , even if volvo takes a lion's share .
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a whole bunch of issues, i take mine mostly on the percentage split. I find it disgusting how much Valve/Beth are taking, its pure greed. Whats sad is that they will make money, I just really hope its not very much - but I doubt that. I wouldn't mind paying content creators for good quality work, but if they only get 25%? hell no... Its like a charity which eats up 75% in admin fees, fuck that!
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah the percentage thing is arguably the main issue with it ... but in the same time , it has been like that for DOTA 2 content creators for ages .... thats why i find it reasonable i guess .
That , and ofc putting someone else's work for sale .. which happened few times so far .
Comment has been collapsed.
By the sounds of it id be against that cut as well, although it is a slightly different case being a f2p game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Duno , i see it as just another excuse for people to make drama.
It was fine for the DOTA workshop , cause it was for cosmetics and stuff ... and those ware never free anyway .
But since they dared touch what was free since forever , everyone loses his mind.
I honestly dont mind paying few $ for a good mod , thats why i dont really mind the change either .
Yeah it needs some fixes , but its not as bad as people try to make it look , atleast for me .
Comment has been collapsed.
Im not really sure that its really a valid point tho.
You an always google and check the mod b4 you buy it ... just like with games.
Also im pretty sure there was 24h Refund thing ...
Yeah it may be kind of bad , but instead of condemning it and burning it on a stick ... think of the ways to improve it.
There are hundreds and hundreds of Negative reviews on the game just cause of that .
Thousands of topics allover the internet , everyone and his mother losing his mind on reddit ... and it was even on the news ?
Why was it fine so far , for the DOTA2 stuff , but suddenly they made the whole process more accesable for everyone ... and everyone just loses his mind .
Comment has been collapsed.
The largest issue in my opinion, is Valve/bethsoft taking 75%. That is an absolutely horrendous cut, considering the amount of work any quality mod that actually generates a profit will take.
There is also the issue of mod stealing, and using stuff without permission, like what happened to that fishing mod. That, and the SKSE people not getting anything, since any mod that isn't just a weapon/skin would not function without it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve baiscly told people it's ok to profit off other people's work, so yes, fuck Valve Also on the "is valve greedy front" you can't defend their 30% cut, if it is indeed 30%, by comparing to other workshop content. We're not talking gun skins or hats that take 5 minutes to make here, we're talking modeling, texturing, scripting, hell some stuff even has custom VO. If we go by mods of others games, since valve wants money off those as well in the future, we're talking years of collaborative work for some. Why would Valve deserve such a huge cut of that? Not to mention it was pure greed to try and monetize mods in the first place, this has nothing to do with helping modders and anyone who claims that is an idiot, this is all about Valve getting more money from a previously untapped revenue source.
The other thing that bugs the fuck out of me is people defending Bethesda's absurd cut of the profits by saying "It's their IP". That's simply a bullshit defense. It's thanks to the shitload of mods the game has that their IP is even so popular at this point. TES games have been going down in quality since Morrowind. Oblivion was so-so and Skyrim, after the "WOW" factor wears off is even worse imho. Many people bought the damn game to begin with because of the mods. Let's be honest here for a second, Skyrim itself is a shallow and boring experience. Sure you can kill Dragons and run around and Fusrodah stuff off mountains but even that gets old after the 20th time or so. It's the mod that give it true life. They should be grateful modders exist not try to fucking profit off them. But hey, we're talking about the creators of Horse Armor so it should be no surprise no??
Comment has been collapsed.
You wont find me arguing that Skyrim is a boring game. I never liked that game, with or without mods.
But IP is an actual thing. For example, JK Rowling made Harry Potter, and its successful. Someone else comes along and spends a few days and writes a book on that universe cashing in on the popularity of that book. Or someone starts making merchandise and sells at a high profit because he knows that the series is popular. I really do think that is wrong. The developer should have control of who makes how much money from their IP. Yes, in certain cases its the mod making the game famous, and not the game making the mod famous, but these are exceptions. You cannot set a rule for exceptions.
As for Valve charging 30%. It has no difference whether the mods take them 5 minutes or 5 months to make. Its a %. They already charge game developers 30%, regardless of whether the game took 5 days or 5 years to be made. The reason they deserve the huge cut is because they market the game, which makes it visible and actually results in sale. Why do you think are game devs so happy when their game gets listed on steam? It is because they know its gonna get a lot more visibility and thus more sales. Most devs are usually happy enough to pay the 30% cut to Valve in return for that visibility. And in this, Valve is the one that convinced the game developers to let mods be sold for a cut. Its Valve that did the hard work and made it possible for sale to be even an option. If the modders think that they would rather go back to their old ways and not be on steam, they still have that choice.
Modders are a part of the community as well. Players really cant say that they are wrong if they want to sell their work for a 25% price only.
As a player all you can choose to do is not buy them to show that you don't feel its the right way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mate that was not the point i was trying to make. I know it's their IP however no one can deny that Skyrim has become so popular DUE TO THE MODS. Modders have fixed Bethesda's shoddy coding. There's Mods on Nexus that fix the damn bugs that Bethesda has been too lazy to fix. 10-15 would have been fine but 45% and calling it "helping the modding community" is outrageous. Just wait for TES 6/Fallout 4, if this system lives on they're getting a pass to launch buggy, half assed games and let the modders sort them out, just like until now except they will also be making a profit off them
You make it sound like they convinced developers to do some great service to players/modders. They didn't do anything else beside show devs there's new ways to MILK the playerbase. Nothing more nothing less. Sure, exposure on the storefront warrants the 30% cut on games. The Workshop is different, i can show you literally tons of mods, both for Skyrim and for other very popular modable games where modders flat out refuse to use the Workshop becuse of restrictions or how it has a tendency to break larger mods. No one had ever asked to be able to sell mods until now, Valve came up with this gimmick, don't make it out like they're just doing everyone a huge favor and bringing us some much requested feature. They did this to make more money off us and to try and sway people away from the popular modding websites like moddb and nexus. The fact that they did it in such a shady way, with 0 prior advertisement or a beta for the system proves they knew it would be very unpopular.
If modders want to sell mods they should stop calling them that, because they stop being mods the second they get a pricetag on them. They're just shoddy third party DLC, nothing more, nothing less. And Valve has set the system up in such a way that there's 0 customer protection. It's Early Access 2.0.
Comment has been collapsed.
SHOCKING interview with Valve employee about selling mods on the workshop
Comment has been collapsed.
Im crying dude :D
OMG , that was funniest thing ive watched in my life :D
Comment has been collapsed.
hahahaha this mods are a joke, bought two of them myself and asked for refund (possible within 24 hours after purchase), when i open the skyrim launcher it said something like "2 our of x mods unsubscribed, disabled" but the files are still there and i can simply activate them on the launcher with the "Data Files" option
it says that the refund can take some days but if so all mods are free lol
if you think that i'm being evil for refunding them i disagree, not because pay for mods is a bad idea but because most of them are not even interesting, paying 45 cents just for a lambda locator? successful valve is successful
Comment has been collapsed.
Hell yes Steam is at fault here. Steam is incredibly greedy here. With TF2, CSGO, DOTA, the 75% cut is kinda acceptable, because those are Valve games, and if you want to play, you play by these rules. But Skyrim is not a Valve game.
Instead of announcing this system, tweaking, making it something good instead of Horse Armour v2.0 , they just suddenly dropped this shit. The 24h refund is absurd (if a future patch breaks what you bought you are literally SOL), content-theft is rampant, the well is being poisoned, etc etc
Valve is just moneygrubbing here and abusing their near-monopoly.
Comment has been collapsed.
"if a future patch breaks what you bought"
But when was the last patch for Skyrim?
Yeah, I get that for whatever games they decide to do this crap with next, but we're talking about Skyrim here.
Comment has been collapsed.
do you really think Skyrim will be the only game to have this system?
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you not read the last sentence of my comment?
No, other games will get it, but they need to either A) Drop it entirely because of this backlash and all the legal shit they can get tangled in, or B) Fix it to where it would actually work (which will almost never happen)
Comment has been collapsed.
You must've edited your comment. That sentence was not there when I posted my reply.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, for me mod is a mod. Work of a single person, often a group of people(one makes models, other person does the textures, etc, you get my drift). Selling mods... I wouldn't have a problem donating for mod creators directly(paypal or something). In fact I did so on few occasions, anonymously(so shh!). But in general mod for me is a work of someone who decided to share his creation. There are already sites providing access to thousands of mods, and giving an option to donate to mod creator(a straightforward donate button on mod page). And those are established, successful sites, where people can get in touch with modders, get support from fellow users. Won't advertise, because I'm not getting paid for thatsarcasm mode on. But I bet many of you know what sites I'm talking about.
I would never buy a mod. Donate to mod creator - yes. Buy it with knowledge that 75% of what I paid went to parasites? No. Never.
And there is the issue of Steam in general, it being the place for people to make money. We have to expect hundreds of mods who are simply reskins or outright stolen work of someone else. Witty cunts trying to get paid for something they didn't make.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you, Rahul. Plus, arguments here trying to verbally kill Valve won't do much, fyfi. Also, a lot of replies to logical posts are giving good reasons to blacklist. I mean what better reason is there to blacklist people than for them to essentially say, "Valve, Steam, and all these games are ruining everything and I don't want anything to do with their crap anymore." I don't see how people can say this AT THE SAME TIME as they themselves are trying to win games for Steam.
To compare it to something else like consoles would be like this conversation:
Friend 1: "Dude, GeneriCompany is such a bunch of greedy jerks, they just leech off of all their users, I never want to use a GeneriConsole again, they're the worst."
Friend 2: "Oh, that's too bad, I'm done with these games now, and was going to give them to you. Guess I'll give them to someone else."
Friend 1: "Nevermind, I can deal with their crap for now, but I won't enjoy it. Gimme, gimme, gimme."
I just don't get why they choose to be here?
P.S. I'll say thanks before hand to all the people who are going to start raging at me because they realize this is true. /(x_x)\
P.P.S. I don't plan on reading any of the "logic" people have behind their retaliations to this, but since it's obvious there are plenty of people who like to waste their time here, I've warned you.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, i would mind all this, but the majority of the paid mods on steam are people putting other people work up for sale, our people asking 30$ for a bundle of mods... which is funny since the legendary edition of the game is "right now" 10.99$ on steam... to be honest i would mind mods being 0.99$ each, but for that they would have to be amazing mods, and not some shitty mod made by someone in 4 hours....
Sure, steam will fixe some things on the future, just like with the "gems" fiasco, but it feels that in some point, steam always thinks in the same way... "Get money first, fix things later".
Comment has been collapsed.
I saw 'New Ways to Support Workshop Creators' when I opened Steam and I clicked on the link and I saw the Skyrim Mod debut pack. "Pick up 16 debut mods and items available for sale in the Skrim Workshop for one low price" it said. £16.24 was the low price. On sale. I nearly choked on my coffee.
£16.24 is apparently a low price for a couple of fun mods that used to be free as well as some Dota 2 swords and other assorted junk. Skyrim LE is £6.79.
With no guarantees that it won't all stop working if Skyrim gets another update.
Nice work Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
so many bad moves by Valve last year...it's a shame
Comment has been collapsed.
Only bad move from Valve are the mod marketplace, the region restrictions and gift limitation are necessary for bots and jerks who abuse of the region prices D: If we are going to blame someone, we need to blame those stupid users that make Valve take those desicion D:
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's a jerk move to price same games either 19,99$ and 19,99€ as 1$=0,8~€... EU pays 1/5th more for the same products.
It's Valve problem to solve the bot flood, why is it pushed on regular users? and if Valve agreed to make a market, wchich again, takes about 1/5th of your sellings from VALVE ONLY wallet (yo dawg, we heard you like to pay valve, so while on steam market buying/selling from valve, you'll pay steam extra valve money) -you can't monetize valve wallet outside it, can't bring them back to paypal or credit card any direct method.
If someone wants to blame anyone then bad news kid, it's not the small people trying to steal a slice of the cake to blame, it's the big ones who show us how big the cake can be are.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Lets put a price tag on MODS!What harm could that possibly do?"-some random dipshit at Valve.
This thread alone gave enough reasons as to why that retard needs to be hanged on a tree in front of Gaben's HQ.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well.. as of now I look at paid mods and all I see is DLC 2.0
Comment has been collapsed.
With all this hype between the new mod shop and the number of pitfalls there are, I have seen a lot of threads on the topic.
However I still don't get all this steam hate.
In the past, I have liked Valve as a company. Lately they have made some decisions, which I am not a fan of, but they still manage to do a lot of things right, compared to other companies. Especially things like cross game trading, game trading, marketplace, workshop, etc. There is no other game distribution service that offers anything like this even today.
TF2, CSGO, DOTA content creators get paid 25%. Most people didn't have any issues with that because the content for those games, is largely skinning, and basic stuff. Not very complicated as full mods tend to be. When I heard about this, I thought it was a step in the right place. Let budding artists display their work, and if its any good, they get some money out of it. Community makes the content, and community votes for what they want in game. Granted, this model is really only good in multiplier games, where you get to show off your gear to other people.
With the mods, its a bit different. I have no illusions, about this mod marketplace being a good thing. These are single player games, and these mods had been free upto this point, and most of them are not very polished either. Unlike the simple skins for valve games, these mods can result in some serious glitches and bugs. There is the whole legal mess to deal with as well. People will be trying to take credit for the work they might not have done on the mod. And it will add significantly to the price foe the end customer. In short, its a mess that should have been foreseen before the system was implemented. I personally think that this should have started with a new game that has no mods to speak of. With hopefully a more even distribution of the money.
Now, as I understand, from the sale of games, valve gets a cut of 30%. If the game is very popular, and is selling a lot, this amount comes down.
For mods, they are charging the same 30% cut. The rest of up to the developer to decide how much they want for themselves, since they do own the IP for the game. In the case of Skyrim, they chose a cut of 45%. Which unfortunately leaves only 25% for the developer of the mod.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that steam is charging 75% for the mod sale. It is simply not true. They are charging exactly what they have always charged for marketing and selling a game via their platform. People pay a lot for marketing. I hear about games spending $100+ million on marketing only. In a lot of cases, the marketing budget actually exceeds the development budget. Steam makes games visible, which is very important if people are to buy the product, and it charges for that. It provides the DRM, servers and other framework to make this possible. Some might feel that 30% cut is too much to display their game in their store, but I feel most developers would gladly pay that to have their work displayed.
However in the whole ordeal people seem to find the most offensive part is that valve is taking a cut from the sale of these mods. But in reality, valve is not charging anything more than what they always have in the past. 30% for games, and now 30% for mods. Regardless of whether 30% is too high or not, fact remains they have NOT charged any differently to what they already were. So, why are there all these comments regarding the greediness of valve? I can understand that people think this whole thing is a bad idea, and that it was prompted by greed, but what I fail to understand is why all the hate at valve for taking their usual cut? I thought people would be more at arms at Bethesda for charging 45%. I feel a 30%(Valve) - 30%(Bethesda) and 40%(Mod Creator) split would have been a bit more fair, but in any event, I fail to see how Valve is being more like EA.
Comment has been collapsed.