It shows people still can change developers' and distributors' decisions. And this is the most important thing.
Oh it's certainly possible, but unfortunately it usually requires the devs/distributor in question to do something that is sufficiently stupid to cause a mass outrage in several communities. Backpedaling like this doesn't really happen all that often, the only other somewhat recent thing that comes to mind is all the XBox One's initially announced "features".
"To help you understand why we thought this was a good idea, our main goals were to allow mod makers the opportunity to work on their mods full time if they wanted to, and to encourage developers to provide better support to their mod communities"
'That's why we wanted to steal 3/4 of their profit....'
I keep thinking of ToEE and the outstanding work the modding community did to make that game playable.
Should they have been paid for thier work? Yes.
Should the developers take a cut because it was based off of their work? Hell no. Most of the fixes should have been done by them. And it wouldnt surprise me if people already bought the game because they were aware of the modding communities fixes. If anything, developers should already pass these groups a small snippet for doing the work for them.
Should Steam take a cut? Yes. They are taking the brunt of the cost for hosting the files in an easy to find large community group that gets more eyeballs than independent sites. BUT they should not control the monopoly. These mods for money should be available at other sites of the makers choosing with different price points or availability.
I hope that developers do not take the ToEE route when releasing a game if they know their products have a strong modding community. Official patches should still be released in timely manners and games shouldn't be abandoned in horrid bug filled states. Fixes like Baldurdash are very welcoming, however, if the main company no longer supports the IP, they shouldn't get a cut from certain mods.
I would be very much against a fixpack being distributed as anything other than free; something like that is essentially a patch, and patches are basically code debt, which means the developer should be the one eating the cost, as painful as it sometimes feels.
However, anything else that modifies the game, if it's being sold, should be paying some kind of royalty to the developer--because it's the developer's work that's being modified and profited from. Is 45% too much of a royalty? Well, there's a couple things to think about.
First: you don't have to negotiate a contract with the developer. They say what the rate is, and if you want to make money from your mod, you pay that rate. This means the modder saves money hiring lawyers to look over those contracts, they save time having to negotiate with the developer, and they get to spend more time doing what they love: making mods.
Second: the developer doesn't get to curate or approve your content. If you make a mod turning everyone in Skyrim into caricatures of Mitt Romney, Bethesda can't stop you. Steam could pull your mod from sale, but that's their right as retailer. Bethesda takes a substantial risk by allowing a modder to make money off of Bethesda's engine, without seeing what that modder is selling first.
Third: The developer is providing the tools, the engine, and (to a certain extent) the marketing for the modder. All the modder has to do is upload their mod to the Steam Workshop, and the popularity of Skyrim (and Skyrim's modding community) does the rest. For a normal developer, that would be an entire division of marketing people campaigning to sell the studio's game. As a modder, you don't have to do any of that.
So with those three things factored in, 45% isn't all that terrible. In fact, considering that until last weekend a modder would be facing a lawsuit for trying to sell their mod, anything less than 70% is still better than before.
What makes it hurt is that Steam takes their 30% first. In a vacuum, with no retailer (which would be totally unsustainable, but for the sake of debate let's say there's a magical way to sell, host, and distribute mods), Bethesda's 45% would become ~65%, and the modder's 25% would become ~35%.
35% isn't bad for a developer working with a publisher, which is essentially what this relationship was built to be.
Of course, if the community isn't ready for that relationship, they aren't ready. But the terms of the setup weren't terrible; they were just communicated poorly.
I like the idea of rewarding a modder. I don't like the idea of Steam taking such a big cut, but nobody is forcing them to put the mod on Steam.
What bothers me about paying for mods is the IP issue. Less about reusing IP from the original game, and more about modders stealing other modder's stuff. Who is going to deal with potential lawsuits between angry teenage modders? What a mess. Of course this is potentially already a problem, but with a profit motive involved, it gives people a real reason to sue.
@supposedly On the other hand, it also creates a real consequence to stealing someone else's material, whereas before the consequences would, at worst, be "You've been banned from X modding community".
EDIT: As to Steam's cut, that's more or less the same cut they take (that any online retailer takes) when selling a digital product. If there's an issue with that cut, it's an issue with the industry as a whole, not just with modding.
Man, the internet sure hates change. I count this as a big loss for modding going forward.
I disagree on this.. Particularly in skyrims case where a lot of the mod content seems to be a result of community effort and so many other mods are dependent on each other. And it's not like money is always an incentive for people to produce better work...
One example i saw a few days ago regarding the sims...
EDIT: As to Steam's cut, that's more or less the same cut they take (that any online retailer takes) when selling a digital product. If there's an issue with that cut, it's an issue with the industry as a whole, not just with modding.
@Dee - this might be true. However, most Development houses have a significantly larger margin to begin with. 25% on 500,000 units is a healthy sight more comfortable than 25% on 200 units (if that). I get it that they are charging what they can, "because they can". And I get that they are adding REAL value in the form of marketing/exposure and distribution. Just saying that, given the actual real world work involved on Steam's part is minimal, they could probably cut the modders a bit of slack. Particularly as their stated goal (not necessarily their ACTUAL goal) is to give financial remuneration to the modders that are due that.
I have a hard time believing that this whole mishegas wasn't always about monetizing mods, which up until now have been a great way to extend gameplay for years at no cost. That, of course, is not exactly conducive to driving sales of newer games. Nobody wants to play an alpha-release of a new game their computer can barely run when they've got a tailor-modded stable game in the same genre/series/vein already paid for and installed. They'll wait until the new game is properly patched, and possibly for a sale, and all companies in every industry want our money now, not months or years from now (though they will "want it now" then). It's all about quarterly earnings. That's why developers are seemingly always rushed by publishers. Call me a cynic.
@supposedly On the other hand, it also creates a real consequence to stealing someone else's material, whereas before the consequences would, at worst, be "You've been banned from X modding community".
EDIT: As to Steam's cut, that's more or less the same cut they take (that any online retailer takes) when selling a digital product. If there's an issue with that cut, it's an issue with the industry as a whole, not just with modding.
I have a hard time believing that this whole mishegas wasn't always about monetizing mods
Valve does like money I'm sure.
You know I just found out that "G2 A" is censored on Steam's forums (I found this out because someone typed in "BG2 and TOB" and the "G2 a" portion got blocked). They really do not like competition apparently
So if that was valves/bethesda's only aim here it wouldn't surprise me.
Comments
It shows people still can change developers' and distributors' decisions. And this is the most important thing.
'That's why we wanted to steal 3/4 of their profit....'
Should they have been paid for thier work? Yes.
Should the developers take a cut because it was based off of their work?
Hell no. Most of the fixes should have been done by them. And it wouldnt surprise me if people already bought the game because they were aware of the modding communities fixes.
If anything, developers should already pass these groups a small snippet for doing the work for them.
Should Steam take a cut?
Yes. They are taking the brunt of the cost for hosting the files in an easy to find large community group that gets more eyeballs than independent sites.
BUT they should not control the monopoly. These mods for money should be available at other sites of the makers choosing with different price points or availability.
I hope that developers do not take the ToEE route when releasing a game if they know their products have a strong modding community. Official patches should still be released in timely manners and games shouldn't be abandoned in horrid bug filled states. Fixes like Baldurdash are very welcoming, however, if the main company no longer supports the IP, they shouldn't get a cut from certain mods.
However, anything else that modifies the game, if it's being sold, should be paying some kind of royalty to the developer--because it's the developer's work that's being modified and profited from. Is 45% too much of a royalty? Well, there's a couple things to think about.
First: you don't have to negotiate a contract with the developer. They say what the rate is, and if you want to make money from your mod, you pay that rate. This means the modder saves money hiring lawyers to look over those contracts, they save time having to negotiate with the developer, and they get to spend more time doing what they love: making mods.
Second: the developer doesn't get to curate or approve your content. If you make a mod turning everyone in Skyrim into caricatures of Mitt Romney, Bethesda can't stop you. Steam could pull your mod from sale, but that's their right as retailer. Bethesda takes a substantial risk by allowing a modder to make money off of Bethesda's engine, without seeing what that modder is selling first.
Third: The developer is providing the tools, the engine, and (to a certain extent) the marketing for the modder. All the modder has to do is upload their mod to the Steam Workshop, and the popularity of Skyrim (and Skyrim's modding community) does the rest. For a normal developer, that would be an entire division of marketing people campaigning to sell the studio's game. As a modder, you don't have to do any of that.
So with those three things factored in, 45% isn't all that terrible. In fact, considering that until last weekend a modder would be facing a lawsuit for trying to sell their mod, anything less than 70% is still better than before.
What makes it hurt is that Steam takes their 30% first. In a vacuum, with no retailer (which would be totally unsustainable, but for the sake of debate let's say there's a magical way to sell, host, and distribute mods), Bethesda's 45% would become ~65%, and the modder's 25% would become ~35%.
35% isn't bad for a developer working with a publisher, which is essentially what this relationship was built to be.
Of course, if the community isn't ready for that relationship, they aren't ready. But the terms of the setup weren't terrible; they were just communicated poorly.
What bothers me about paying for mods is the IP issue. Less about reusing IP from the original game, and more about modders stealing other modder's stuff. Who is going to deal with potential lawsuits between angry teenage modders? What a mess. Of course this is potentially already a problem, but with a profit motive involved, it gives people a real reason to sue.
EDIT: As to Steam's cut, that's more or less the same cut they take (that any online retailer takes) when selling a digital product. If there's an issue with that cut, it's an issue with the industry as a whole, not just with modding.
One example i saw a few days ago regarding the sims...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161518669&postcount=2631
Certainly that shouldn't be taken as gospel, but at least it's one example of a game where this concept probably hasn't worked out.
That, of course, is not exactly conducive to driving sales of newer games. Nobody wants to play an alpha-release of a new game their computer can barely run when they've got a tailor-modded stable game in the same genre/series/vein already paid for and installed. They'll wait until the new game is properly patched, and possibly for a sale, and all companies in every industry want our money now, not months or years from now (though they will "want it now" then). It's all about quarterly earnings. That's why developers are seemingly always rushed by publishers. Call me a cynic.
You know I just found out that "G2 A" is censored on Steam's forums (I found this out because someone typed in "BG2 and TOB" and the "G2 a" portion got blocked). They really do not like competition apparently
So if that was valves/bethesda's only aim here it wouldn't surprise me.