Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Charging money for mods.

124»

Comments

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 17,701
    But this is a win, my friends. Maybe not a win in a war, but in the battle at least.

    It shows people still can change developers' and distributors' decisions. And this is the most important thing.

    FinneousPJCahir
  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,190
    bengoshi said:

    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".

    jackjack
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,738
    "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....'

    jackjackthe_spyder
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 6,515
    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.

    elminsterbooinyoureyesjackjack
  • CoryNewbCoryNewb Member Posts: 1,330
    Man, the internet sure hates change. I count this as a big loss for modding going forward.

    booinyoureyes
  • supposedlysupposedly Member Posts: 206
    edited April 2015
    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.

  • batoorbatoor Member Posts: 648
    CoryNewb said:

    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...

    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.

    typo_tilly
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,017
    Dee said:

    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.

  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,247
    edited April 2015
    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.

    Post edited by jackjack on
    the_spyderJuliusBorisov
  • typo_tillytypo_tilly Member Posts: 5,610
    There is an excitement of discovering how to mod a small thing then sharing that discovery with the community. If money is involved... less sharing? n.n? I'm sure paying could work for some modders, but probably not most.


    Also, Beamdog should just hire all the modders. n.n

    jackjack
  • supposedlysupposedly Member Posts: 206
    Dee said:

    @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.

    Good points. I agree with both of the above.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,765
    edited April 2015
    jackjack said:

    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.

    jackjackKamigoroshi
Sign In or Register to comment.