The Cohhilition

Had a lot of good talk in the chat about the whole controversy, but it was getting a bit distracting (though thoughtful and respectful so good on everyone involved for not letting it get out of hand ) so opening up this thread about it for further discussion.

One point I wanted to highlight at the beginning here is it appears to be confused and misunderstood, if you read the terms that the game publisher decides the payment percentages (thanks to serapdurma for the link) so its not entirely steams fault that currently specifies 75% on Skyrim mods
http://i.imgur.com/VdHg4dG.png

And per Spero_Mcgee the faq link for market payments:
http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/work ... ntinfofaq/




And just because its funny but semi thoughtful on the state of it all..
[MEDIA=youtube]eDyXIXyAZq0[/MEDIA]

I actually found another article just couple of minutes ago about this whole situation, it specifies that Valve is actually getting 30% Bethesda 45% and then 25% goes to the creator of the mod. I don't know how or where from they got those specific numbers but Forbes is a reliable and honest as far as I'm concerned. Anyway the whole article is worth to go through it brings up loads of valid points - http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/ ... -disaster/

I will start out by saying as I was in chat that I do not think its a bad idea that mod creators get compensated for their work. There is always those people who make a crap product that try to sell it but that happens with everything (Cringes thinking of War Z). We also have the blatant theft of others mods to sell as their own from other mod sites (like nexus that there are reports of people taking theirs down as a protective measure)

The main concerns I see are legality, for things like

• tools used may or may not allow user to sell, i.e. student license
• Owning the core content, especially building off others mods as a core or purposely/inadvertently stolen textures (art is a huge landmine topic in general)

Also, with selling it and making a profit, even if its entirely legal, while admirable for people who put a lot of work into it with the current cut going to the creator (25%) to make anything decent for themselves they would have to increase price of mod. Also is this really fair to the mod creator? They used the base game, yes, but this does not seem proportionate.

Exactly building mods on the base of other mods and then selling them... it's just a massive complicated legal mess. What's more looking at the example of the "Art of the Catch" mod (was pulled down from steam) Valve doesn't even let the modder to take down mods completely, they allow to mark it as not for sale.

Here is the statement from creator of the mod as found on reddit.com

"I was just contacted by Valve’s lawyer. He stated that they will not remove the content unless “legally compelled to do so”, and that they will make the file visible only to currently paid users. I am beside myself with anger right now as they try to tell me what I can do with my own content. The copyright situation with Art of the Catch is shades of grey, but in [separate mod] Arissa 2.0’s case, it’s black and white; that’s 100% mine and Griefmyst’s work, and I should be able to dictate its distribution if I so choose. Unbelievable."

And this part is from Steam Terms and Conditions:

“You may, in your sole discretion, choose to remove a Workshop Contribution from the applicable Workshop pages. If you do so, Valve will no longer have the right to use, distribute, transmit, communicate, publicly display or publicly perform the Workshop Contribution, except that (a) Valve may continue to exercise these rights for any Workshop Contribution that is accepted for distribution in-game or distributed in a manner that allows it to be used in-game, and (b) your removal will not affect the rights of any Subscriber who has already obtained access to a copy of the Workshop Contribution.”

There is another big issue that could surface in the future. What if developers decide to make less content for future games cause oh well it will get moded in later on by someone and we still get money from it, why should we pay our devs more and spend more time on development when we can just rush it out, and fans will mod it eventually!

Totalbiscuit also did a video on the subject: [MEDIA=youtube]oGKOiQGeO-k[/MEDIA] .
Some of the stuff I mention here is, are also points from TB's video that I agree with.
Currently it does seem like that its mostly in the hands of the publisher, so they could've just as easily kept the cut taken and left more the mod makers. The more talented mod makers might be able to gain something out of this, having a bit more of incentive. The quality in general of mods could go up and more mods in general might actually get finished, because how often do you see mods get abandoned because of personal reasons . Donations was a grey area in particular I think it gave problems on a place like Nexus that didn't allow monetization as well.
Legal reasons was one of the simple reasons that there was no way to monetize your mods in the past so it could only be done for free. A huge problem currently is mods conflicting each other and for the end user to ask for the mod maker to fix things even if its quite possible that an official patch of the Devs themselves could break a mod.
Copyright is another thing. What about mod creators using free tools/paid tools or a combination of each?
Rules with those tools no doubt state that one may not use said tools for commercial use which would mean if we have to pay to use certain mods then those mods wouldnt be allowed to be hosted on steam/nexus/wherever.
Modders sharing/stealing with/from each other (compilations) .
Currently the only idea I like is the example TB made of the ex-dev that made a Patreon for his work, that makes mods for Cities: Skylines. Either way there's a lot of that has to be thought of first then just doing an experiment like this. ./sigh

Valve seems to be doing a lot of experimenting with live steam recently.
First Mortal Kombat X and that stupid download the game in parts (didn't affect me too much as I have great net), now this whole payable mods... Wonder what's gonna be next?!

I am not completely familiar with Patreon, to my knowledge it is a monthly subscription kind of thing right? Unless we are referring to a straight donation model I am a little confused on how that would help.

While this system has the great potential for for rewarding competent mods and content creators I do think the '***' will work itself out (one sword for a dollar type things, someone will make one for free or a set that's better which does not work in paid official dlc from game creators).

But the entire system encourages the *** and clogs the market so you have difficulty finding things. Rampant stolen content claims is probably going to be handled swiftly with little fact checking, which I can already see will lead people to filing claims on competing mods to remove them from the competition to further their mod and wealth because its setting a precedence of monetary expectations which I am not happy with but is kind of inevitable.

The TB video makes a good point on legality of modifying a company's game has been kinda a grey area but I disagree that it was nothing until now. Steam workshop support is explicitly added by the developer, that would (even without the payment) give the ok to modify the game. This is an example of them saying yes you can, but now we cant a cut if your going to make money. I grudgingly admit that giving them a cut will solve the legality of allow mods to be paid.

On the cuts.. if the cut is indeed 30/45/25 as the Forbes article suggests I think 30% is asking a bit much for hosting but lets consider for this thought our of our power and focus on that remaining 70%. Looking at the remaining 70% is split, that is almost 65% to the developer of the game and only 35% to the mod creator. While I hate to say it maybe a small cut to the game developer is to be considered (previous section on legality) they are making money off the base game sale and all their work while having zero work with the mod itself. The entire reason I view mods as being worth paying are the time and effort, just like the game developers deserve compensation for their work. For mod creation the game devs have made efforts to allow the mods and provide some sort of framework and are the owners of the framework mod is build in, but they have zero say in the mods themselves and it is unlikely they will generally provide support to the mod creator. Why are they getting such a big cut of it in this case? I really see no reason beyond a money grab that a cut above 25% (of the 70% they can get a cut of, so 30 steam/18 dev/52 modder roughly) on a high end should be considered.

-- Edit --

As for steams 30% cut.. after writing another response and further if they are going to be actively handling the legality situations as they arise I can see the cut as being a service fee for handling this which will be a HUGE undertaking. The initial reports have not been stellar about Steams handling of cases but I can give them a bit more leway if I consider the substantial effort handling that would take if its done properly.

Also, on the 'they will mod it in later' argument for dev laziness. You will note only game that are well done and popular to begin with have large modding communities. The game has to stand on its own but allow for expansion to foster a community. If I hate the game I am not gonna play it, much less get mods to make it better or even pay for those. This attitude if attempted will hurt the game and not encourage modding in my opinion.

[QUOTE="SerapDuma, post: 25629, member: 46749"]Valve seems to be doing a lot of experimenting with live steam recently.
First Mortal Kombat X and that stupid download the game in parts (didn't affect me too much as I have great net), now this whole payable mods... Wonder what's gonna be next?![/QUOTE]

On this.. the ideas are good but possibly poorly executed. Steam as a content platform is just that, a platform. They need to build value in using their system over others for developers. Streaming download is an example that a large game can manage in bite size chunks I approve of but could have been better run (specifying module install order, pre-load allowing everything rather than 3gb of like 50 and defeating the purpose, the fact modules didn't unlock properly).

For payable mods they are building value to the game developers via their platform, and it also entices mod support as the company's can make more money after game release. Games that might not consider mod support may implement it and enrich games via it because it has the ability to increase their income for minimal work. In this case paying for mods is a benefit to the modder, steam, and the game dev from a structure standpoint.

They have created a market to reward people for their work, while making it legal to do so and roping in game devs to the idea. Its quite diabolical and beneficial to all parties at a structure level (arguments of cuts and technical handling so far aside)

Good point Red. I'd have to agree handling aside this could be beneficial to everyone.
And yes Patreon is a like a monthly sub thing, you pay 1 dollar minimum to support someone financially that you like, in my case for example I support Jim Sterling. The Patron you're giving in turn can also set certain monetary goals for his/her work which could be anything. You'd have to look into some Patreon examples.
Patreon essentially makes it possible for people to take upon certain types of works/jobs that normally speaking wouldn't be financially stable. Like mentioned in the TB video an ex-dev has a Patreon for making mods within Cities: Skylines. Patreon can make any idea you have as a person whether it's a service/product or whatever financially suitable. Of course you would need to have many people back you and you don't exactly get the amount thats listed on your page. Patreon's cut and ofc taxes that you have to pay gets applied normally.
You could certainly make your living on it or at least have some sort of financial support from it, no matter how little.

Edit: Some links on the matter http://www.reddit.com/r/Cynicalbrit/com ... m_content/
Some legal stuff from Valve: http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/work ... ntinfofaq/

[QUOTE="spero_mcgee, post: 25633, member: 41393"]Good point Red. I'd have to agree handling aside this could be beneficial to everyone.
And yes Patreon is a like a monthly sub thing, you pay 1 dollar minimum to support someone financially that you like, in my case for example I support Jim Sterling. The Patron you're giving in turn can also set certain monetary goals for his/her work which could be anything. You'd have to look into some Patreon examples.
Patreon essentially makes it possible for people to take upon certain types of works/jobs that normally speaking wouldn't be financially stable.[/QUOTE]

Ok so I was thinking of it correctly, however I am wondering how viable it would be for modders in general as a long term thing. The ex-dev doing cities mods is a unique situation because they are a dev of another game and have some clout. Unless a mod creator has a large pool or killer mod they have already done I do not see the general populace sticking with it for a single mod or small pack regardless of size. People will pay once to get access or for a while but eventually a mod will have a point it has accomplished its task (except maybe total conversions) and people will view their support as being complete. I am concerned without a total conversion mode or someone who just makes the killer app again and again the patreon would not be long term viable for someone. Wouldn't they have to resort to making lots of little mods to try and keep patrons and potentially dilute their offerings. Minus the most prolific mod creators I do not see this type of system working well and most people are not prolific or large mod sets are collabrative.

http://www.pcgamer.com/im-a-modder-i-de ... pensation/
While I do not agree this is a great article about how they should be paid for the mods.