Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tartiflette]

The only reason the modders' cut is so low is because there is no negotiating leverage whatsoever on their side.

Actually if a couple of mods like SKSE or SkyUI could have leverage as most of the other mods are based on them. If they made a stance like forbidding use on paid mods or simply removing them altogether until a better deal is struck Valve and Bethesda would have to at least consider changing something.

Also saying "25% is better than 0%" really is a bad way to look at it because 1) it's like saying the bus driver should take 3/4 of your salary because you wouldn't be able to go to work otherwise, and 2) they are already trying to prevent people from getting donation outside this system, and everything tend toward enforcing mandatory workshop modding in the future.

[xenoargh]

@kazi:  I agree that it's not necessarily a good cut and I get the ROI arguments. 

That's all subject to change, though; we'll see what happens next, when a big, polished project decides to go pro.  The market's reaction to these things will be very interesting; I'm guessing that the first few times, this ends in a fracas, because the world of modding now is so used to people ripping each other off, lol.  Then people will get their acts together and the market will buy stuff if it's good.

I don't think the example of "helmet guy" was bogus at all, and I didn't raise him as a straw man.  People like him are precisely what this is about, to me. 

I darn well think that people like that will charge for their work now, and people will pay for it.  You might not, but the kids who grew up on micro-payments and DLC won't bat an eye at shelling out a buck for something that's nice and enhances their game, especially if the first few builds were released for free to build interest.  Just wait and see; excellent collections of quality art can and will be commercialized now.

How this scenario changes what games cost up-front for the core package (i.e., the broader economic implications of this) is also an interesting question.  Perhaps a AAA can make a game with a price-point of $10, make it very moddable, and then make its long-term profits off of the Steam market?  I'm sure there are people looking at that ROI picture right now.

Mods have always been a "for free" endeavor. People made them not because they thought they'd make money off them, but because it's a fun thing to do.

Er, maybe some places, like here.  Not when we're talking about major AAA mods for AAA engines.  They are mainly student resume pads or "hey, I'm between gigs and this is what I can do in a month" by pros, surrounded by a huge clutter of lone-wolf and minor-league stuff, some good, some bad. 

Counter-Strike, for example, wasn't just a couple of guys screwing around in a basement; they were using professional-grade tools and had already developed a hit project and were on VaLVe's radar.

What this changes is the all-or-nothing nature of the beast. 

Instead of, "victory is if EA wants to hire me" and defeat is an opportunity cost, it's "victory is 100K downloads, a new car, and if EA doesn't hire me, do it again" and defeat is likely "enough beer money that I feel like I did something more useful than just hack at a project for months, only to get a rejection letter". 

It's going to change the psychology involved quite a bit; amongst other things, perhaps it'll change the dynamic where the typical serious modder lasts about 3 years and quits when they realize they're not on the shortlist to work at a major publisher, even if their work has developed a large following.

For artists, sound and music people, this is a bigger deal than for the coders; coders often have a lucrative exit path doing "boring" stuff, most artists who've largely steered their skills into gamedev art have placed a larger bet, and a huge number of them crash and burn out of the market every year, despite having a lot of potential, which I've always thought was a sad waste of human resources.

Let's use Starsector for an example... should every mod have to shell out a portion of the profits for ShaderLib/LazyLib? How do you decide which contributors get what? Is that guy who contributed one line of code going to try to start shaking you down? Should you start including watermarks and copyright protection *** in even art/music/sfx demos that you send on to friends?

You'll handle that stuff the same way you do in commercial game-dev, if you're a serious person who wants to make money. 

For the most part, that's straightforward stuff.  I predict that there is going to be a heck of a lot of Wiki-making about dealing with the legal issues really soon, though, which is of benefit to everybody, including Indie devs.

[Midnight Kitsune]

I'll just leave this here...

Spoiler

[close]

[kazi]

Eh, I don't see AAA price points going down anytime soon (why lower them when everyone is already used to those prices?). Mods will just be an bonus revenue stream for publishers.

And in the case you mentioned of pro-teams during downtime/students padding resumes, it still doesn't change the fact that they started the project with the intention to release for free. No one feels bad for your friend when he made a free product and goes "man, everyone should have paid me for this" only after it got popular. This is especially true when there was no legal way to collect revenue in the first place. That also relies on the flawed assumption that everyone who downloaded your mod (or a very significant fraction) was a sale that you lost out on, which simply isn't the case (but with that line of logic someone at the MPAA has a medal for him). No, I think the vast majority of people are going to see only meager sales if anything (maybe on the order of several hundred/thousand dollars in compensation for a similar number of hours worked).

The real issue here is that the current licensing agreements and compensation are terrible. Anyone who's not on a professional team is going to make very little, if anything- and those that are on teams are going to make significantly less than they would putting together an actual game. The miniscule 25% cut and "we take the first 400 dollars of sales and you get nothing" clause are really going to put a damper on the ability of most modders to monetize things. Plus, it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, for casual modders to work around the legal issues of converting existing free mods to paid ones.

I'll concede that we'll see some really awesome, well-polished paid mods. It's just that everyone who's not an absolute pro is going to lose out here. Under the current licensing terms, it's going to be tough for small time modders (or those that work on obscure/smaller games) to make any kind of living off things. This is the reason why this whole affair seems like a total cash grab to me. Sure, you could say that the modder is at least getting some money (where they weren't before), but doesn't that same line of reasoning apply to the game dev and Valve as well? It's not as if they were getting any money before either... Why do they deserve the majority of the cash when they literally haven't done anything? Why not give us a fair share of the profits?

In short, my only real issue is that both parties should benefit equally. The current licensing agreements are frankly insulting.

[Tartiflette]

AAA titles prices won't go down because games are already bloody cheap compared to the money investment. If you except lazy sequels à la COD or Assassin's Creed, only a handful of big AAA make a huge profit, and a lo don't break even. That's why now those big titles have a near 50/50 budget for the game itself (including physical media) and advertising.

And for the pro-teams, I don't see that happen a lot. I think the market will be swarmed by low price/low investment vanity objects that can be produced in batches and sold at ridiculous prices. Then there may be a very few teams that might create big mods in many games, effectively becoming a DLC studio. I don't see that happening a lot since the sales required to break even with that cut will be enormous. Some says 25% is close to what game studios receive on their game sale, but that's forgetting they already go paid by the publisher to make the game, the 25% is a bonus to cover the extra costs and prepare the next game!

[kazi]

Also this seems relevant:

Spoiler

[close]

[Tartiflette]

All of DarkOne's (the guy that run Nexus) news posts are very insightful, if a bit long to read. Here's a nice cut:

While I'm talking about this fear of mods or assets being stolen, I feel I need to point out a massive, glaring issue with this new Workshop implementation, because right now people are focusing on "Oh my god, you mean I might need to pay for some mods?" while I think an even more horrific thing is "Oh my god, you mean I will have to pay to check and make sure if someone has stolen my work!?". Let me explain. The new implementation is set up so that there's a 7-day grace period after an author uploads a file with a pricetag. During these 7 days users can view the file page, look at the pictures and read the description, but they cannot download the file. The idea of this grace period is to get the community to police new uploads before they're added to make sure that nothing bad is added to the paid section of the site. Seems like a good idea. Except if a mod author is using stolen assets from other people's mods.

Unless the thief is pants on head stupid they're not going to talk about stealing assets from other mods or put up pictures that would suggest assets have been stolen. The only way the authors of the assets that have been stolen will know it's happened is if someone buys the mod and then tells the author. At which point the author is either going to have to engage in the new world of mod piracy (which began yesterday in earnest) or they're going to have to buy the mod for themselves. So you want to say, "But Dark0ne, the author can buy the mod, investigate, then ask for a refund, as there's a refund system!". Yes, there's a refund system. A refund system that refunds you in Steam Wallet money that you can never take out of Steam. So once you've bought that mod, that money will always be Valve's from that point on. Refund or not. That, I'm sorry to say, is batshit. Freaking. Crazy. Add to that the fact that the mod may have made substantial sums of money before it's spotted, some of which may have already been paid to the thief, or alternatively has been removed from the thief's account before they could get the payout and, guess where the money goes then? That's right. Valve's coffers.

[Linnis]

Anyways, if its such a bad deal what will make modders go along with it anyways. If the cost for making something can never be brought back because of this tax, then why would anyone make anything for this, also, then why would people buy content that is totally not worth the money.

Either the ratio gets fair, or no one will buy mods anyways. The same thing has already happened with youtube partnership program. They set it high, and lower it gradually to see the max gain they can get from content creators without them turning the other way.



...Then soon steam will demand exclusive publishing rights. GG

[Nanao-kun]

On the topic of SKSE:

    SKSE (and all of our other Script Extenders) will remain FREE to use for everyone. We will not charge anyone for it. Ever.
    Creators of mods which depend upon SKSE must make their own choices regarding whether to ask for payment for their mods.
    We will not receive any partial payment from those sales.
    Reasons for #2 and #3: See #1.

From http://skse.silverlock.org/

[TJJ]

Skyrim's workshop is hilarious atm.

:edit:

Re SKSE; disappointing they've taken such an neutral stance.

SKSE remains the perfect example of why monetizing mods is fundamentally flawed; imagine the fragmentation that would be caused if SKSE was not free.
Equally the presence of monetization will disincentivize future creation of similar 'enabling' mods that in & of themselves cannot be monetized.

[Tartiflette]

Anyways, if its such a bad deal what will make modders go along with it anyways. If the cost for making something can never be brought back because of this tax, then why would anyone make anything for this, also, then why would people buy content that is totally not worth the money.

The problem may be that the EULA grant Valve and the publisher all rights on your mod the moment you post it on the workshop. Technically they could leave the workshop free for a few month, then switch to paid mods and set a price for all of them, even without your consent. And soon we might see mandatory use of the workshop arise because it makes more money that way...

[CrashToDesktop]

Well, it would appear as if the petition against the paid content has won.  According to the petition update (here: https://www.change.org/p/valve-remove-the-paid-content-of-the-steam-workshop/u/10645665), Bethesda and Valve are now rolling back the changes.  Oh, and Bluedrake42 also uploaded something on it as well.  I'll try to find a few more sources, but I doubt something like this would happen with the intent to fool.

What's your thoughts on that plot twist, people?

[MesoTroniK]

https://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218

[kazi]

I think this ended as well as it possibly could have. Valve and Bethesda backed off on a set of extremely draconian licensing terms. From my "between the lines" reading of Bethesda and Valve's statements, they are going to try to re-introduce paid content again in the future (likely Fallout 4), likely with better terms. This is a good thing. Good work should be rewarded, and addition of payment would certainly get a lot of people to take things more seriously. Better terms for both players and modders will be, well... better.

In the end, I think it's clear that several things were wrong with Valve/Bethesda's terms on both the players' side and the modders' side. If they wanted to do things right, they would have to address the following terms:

Modders:

• The game developer was getting a larger cut of revenue than the people who did the actual work. It doesn't matter how other price points in the industry work, that's simply not fair.
• The modders did not get paid until they reached a sales threshold of $400 (many mods won't make it to that point).
• The licensing terms were written in such a way that modders felt that they lost most, if not all, intellectual rights to their work.
• There was little to no protection from other people stealing your code and passing it off as their own. Even checking for plagiarism even required buying the infringing mod.
• There was no framework in place to reward modders who created key modding libraries and APIs used to create paid content.

Players:

• Mod pricing was way off. The "debut mod bundle" cost twice as much as the actual game.
• Lack of quality control: Some modders were adding popup adds to upgrade to the paid version, or just in general failed to make complete and worthwhile content.
• No way to seek a refund for broken work (and the 24 hour grace period was too short). Even the refunds were only to the steam wallet (and not cash).
• Forced purchase of content. If a key modding library or other dependency went commercial, your free mods might no longer be playable (or you couldn't use them period if you didn't have the library in the first place).

In the entirely hypothetical situation that Starsector was to incorporate paid mods, Alex would have to address the above terms. Granted, most of the problems wouldn't be as significant. This is especially true on the players' side- the modding community is small enough that everything could be vetted by Alex/moderators. Going a step further, I think the maximum anyone could possibly expect to charge for a mod would be around $2 US (with maybe 5-15% of each purchase going to support the people who made SF Edit, LazyLib, and ShaderLib if those see a reasonable amount of use by a mod). That said, I think everyone is a long way off from charging money for their stuff (at least I am...), although Cycerin has a donate button now.

Just figured I'd add my 2 cents worth, since I sorta get the feeling that Alex is lurking around in the background and watching the outcome of this discussion.

[xenoargh]

I agree with that analysis, kazi; it's pretty clear to me that VaLVe / Bethesda jumped the gun a bit here, and didn't really think through how to approach this with enough care and preparation. 

Using a mature product like Skyrim was probably their biggest mistake, in retrospect; it really wasn't going to turn out well, with the waters so muddy, especially in regards to the largest flagship mods, where they're built on top of so many peoples' IP.

I really do expect this concept to return, however, for the reasons I said before.  It's pretty clear VaLVe expects to give it another go, too; they basically said, "oops, we might have jumped the gun" but they didn't really say, "this was a terrible idea and we'll never bother again" if you read what Gabe Newell had to say.

I actually think that this is a good idea, in the long term, because it provides an incentive for both game developers and modders to provide content for their customers, not just at release, but for years to come.  With a lot of AAA titles struggling to simply make ROI in today's market, this is actually a great solution to the issues, bringing together a lot of like interests, and I think we'll definitely see it brought back, with a lot of changes that will improve things for all of the parties.