Mods for sale

Ri_Nollaig

Must say I am very surprised by this, didn't think it would be cut and cut this quickly too!

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Unlike pretty much everyone on the internet (or at least reddit) I don't hate this idea. I seen the thread on reddit the day this happened and all the negative reactions and couldn't believe the outcry. Some of the arguments against it are just stupid. Nobody forced the modders to charge for their mods, Valve just gave them the option to do it. Some on reddit were saying that because Steam is now charging for mods they need to ensure the quality of the content. That's bullshít. There are plenty of shít games and overpriced games on Steam and no one cared that Valve wasn't ensuring the quality of them so why should they do it for mods. There are some very valid concerns. Two big ones that stand out for me is people selling mods that they didn't develop. That isn't on and if paid mods do come back (I suspect they will at some stage) then this is something that Valve would really need to ensure doesn't happen. The other is the paltry cut the modder gets. 25% is nothing and I'd find it pretty insulting if I was a modder. 70% plus for the modder after any taxes if any would be a decent cut I think and is in line with what games developers get on steam and the mobile app stores.

I dunno if its as simple as "they put effort into making a mod, therefore should get paid..."

I do think it should either remain free or donation [humble bundle style], the idea of charging for mods is a bit different to developing a game from stretch. You are using the underlying platform/assets/engine of the existing game, so 25% is probably about right really. Mod too is a very broad term, can range from a silly hat to an entire overhaul that would rival any official DLC. Most would do this as either a hobby or a doorway into creating their own game/getting hired by a developer anyway.

I do like Taylor365's idea of packaging "the most popular mods" into a semi-official DLC, charging for it and giving the original mods a percentage [how much I don't know!]. Would remove a lot of the crap I am sure would have filled the store, ensured cross compatibility and that the content was created by the person who claims to have made it.

Skerries

Taylor365 wrote: »

Nobody in their right mind is gonna pay money just for a sword or crabs with hats! (although outrageously suave)

Team Fortress 2 would like a word with you

gizmo

Taylor365 wrote: »

Sounds sensationalist.

Him making 20 cents would hardly be a revelation yet would fit that quote.

Any of the popular mods (million + downloads) have made money through donations over the years.

Yes, they've made money and the point Bethesda made was that one of the most popular modders made more in just one day from the paid workshop than it had via the donation system to date. This is far from sensationalist, they're not claiming it would happen to everyone but I think it does a good job in highlighting the fact that there is definitely a market for premium mod content out there.

Speaking of which...

Taylor365 wrote: »

Nobody in their right mind is gonna pay money just for a sword or crabs with hats! (although outrageously suave)

Valve has paid out $57M to creators making hats, skins and items for Steam Workshop

What's been most disappointing about this entire affair is that no one really wants to debate it. All we've really had over the last number of days is veritable army of straw men arguments rolled out rather than someone making a reasonable argument as to why people who put their time, effort and skill into making new content shouldn't have the option to charge a reasonable price for it.

ScumLord

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Some on reddit were saying that because Steam is now charging for mods they need to ensure the quality of the content. That's bullshít.

Up to a point it is, the problem is the modders can be anyone, they may not care about the end result or just may not have the experience and knowledge to make an acceptable final product.

I think valve would have to put in some ground rules for modders so there would be at least a minimum standard on mods that are requesting payment.

I'm not against paying for mods, I have paid for mods. I don't think donations work because if I'm not made pay money I won't pay money. I've never donated and probably never will. But I have no problem paying a reasonable price if someone asks for it.

I think this will come in eventually, Valve are clearly looking at a big profit for doing feck all extra by getting a cut of mod sales. They won't be able to ignore that forever. As long as it's up to the modder and they can still give out their mods for free if they choose to.

Taylor365

Skerries wrote: »

Team Fortress 2 would like a word with you

gizmo wrote: »

Speaking of which...

Valve has paid out $57M to creators making hats, skins and items for Steam Workshop

What's been most disappointing about this entire affair is that no one really wants to debate it. All we've really had over the last number of days is veritable army of straw men arguments rolled out rather than someone making a reasonable argument as to why people who put their time, effort and skill into making new content shouldn't have the option to charge a reasonable price for it.

Most of which is for online content for multiplayer games. There's a reason skins sell in MOBAs - to show off to fellow gamers. Same with Hats/items/guns/etc.

Not the same for Skyrim at all. Speaking of straw man....:rolleyes:

gizmo

Taylor365 wrote: »

Most of which is for online content for multiplayer games. There's a reason skins sell in MOBAs - to show off to fellow gamers. Same with Hats/items/guns/etc.

Not the same for Skyrim at all. Speaking of straw man....:rolleyes:

What? That's not a straw man. The ones I was referring to were the "paid for mods are bad because it'll lead to Valve locking down modding, Bethesda adding DRM to their mod system and free mods being banned in future TES/Fallout games" etc... which were all over the place for the last few days.

The link I've provided very clearly contradicts you're previous point. It doesn't matter whether the content it for single or multiplayer games. It also doesn't matter why the customer is buying it. What matters is the creator of that content was able to charge for something they made themselves.

In fact, I asked the very same question a few days ago. So again, what's the difference between a modder creating assets for an online game and ones for a single player game? It's the same amount of work, why should one be fine to charge for and another not?

pablomakaveli

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

There are plenty of shít games and overpriced games on Steam and no one cared that Valve wasn't ensuring the quality of them so why should they do it for mods. .

This isn't true at all. A lot of people are fed up of the crap on greenlight and early access. There's been calls for Valve to have some form of quality control for a while now.

Potatoeman

I usually dont buy dlc as its typically over priced for what you get and I can see the same issue with paid mods. I find the older I get the less willing I am to fork out full price anyway and if you wait for a sale you can get the game and dlc for under half price.

People with decent pc's go for games like skyrim on pc over console as mods add life onto some games.

If I had to pay for mods on steam I would go back to buying a hardcopy of the game. I would still use steam for most games but anything that I would want mods for, I would avoid. I guess the next step for them is always online and no free mods pushed by the publisher, anything else would be bad for steam.

Taylor365

gizmo wrote: »

What? That's not a straw man. The ones I was referring to were the "paid for mods are bad because it'll lead to Valve locking down modding, Bethesda adding DRM to their mod system and free mods being banned in future TES/Fallout games" etc... which were all over the place for the last few days.

The link I've provided very clearly contradicts you're previous point. It doesn't matter whether the content it for single or multiplayer games. It also doesn't matter why the customer is buying it. What matters is the creator of that content was able to charge for something they made themselves.

In fact, I asked the very same question a few days ago. So again, what's the difference between a modder creating assets for an online game and ones for a single player game? It's the same amount of work, why should one be fine to charge for and another not?

Of course it matters.

The same reason the modding community exists for online games. There's a demand there and people are willing to pay. If no one played TF2, there'd be no modding community.

There is defiantly a demand for skyrims mods, but clearly, they're not willing to pay. Skyrim would be long forgotten if not for its free modding community i believe. From ENBs to intricate weather systems (and fine a$$ mud crabs!). A lot more than just a hat.

Should they be entitled to charge? Sure! Would i pay? No. In this age, you can pick up new releases a few months down the line for under €20. Thief, a full AAA game a year on is under €10. If they were priced right and polished with a clear demo, I'd have no problem paying 20-60c a mod. (Which would have cost me €36 at max price xD)

DragonBourne

A donation scheme for me would be best

Potatoeman

Taylor365 wrote: »

Of course it matters.

The same reason the modding community exists for online games. There's a demand there and people are willing to pay. If no one played TF2, there'd be no modding community.

There is defiantly a demand for skyrims mods, but clearly, they're not willing to pay. Skyrim would be long forgotten if not for its free modding community i believe. From ENBs to intricate weather systems (and fine a$$ mud crabs!). A lot more than just a hat.

Should they be entitled to charge? Sure! Would i pay? No. In this age, you can pick up new releases a few months down the line for under €20. Thief, a full AAA game a year on is under €10. If they were priced right and polished with a clear demo, I'd have no problem paying 20-60c a mod. (Which would have cost me €36 at max price xD)

Game pricing can be weird too. Game deals where the game is under 5 euro but dlc is full price over a year after release. I posted on steam when a new assassins creed was released and the last game was still full price. They sent me a half price code but left the price as it was.

gizmo

Taylor365 wrote: »

Of course it matters.

The same reason the modding community exists for online games. There's a demand there and people are willing to pay. If no one played TF2, there'd be no modding community.

From the perspective of the person creating the content, why does it matter? It's not any easier to create content for a single player game compared to a multiplayer game after all. Yet, in the latter case, Valve gave content creators the ability to sell their wares and people definitely went for it. If there was going to be no demand for it then that's totally fine but what I was trying to get at was why people think it should be explicitly free in the case of SP games.

Taylor365 wrote: »

There is defiantly a demand for skyrims mods, but clearly, they're not willing to pay. Skyrim would be long forgotten if not for its free modding community i believe. From ENBs to intricate weather systems (and fine a$$ mud crabs!). A lot more than just a hat.

On the contrary, some people were willing to pay but the outcry from those who weren't was so great that now no one can charge for something they've created. To be honest, I'm less concerned about smaller scale mods here and more so about larger scale ones where people, multiple or otherwise, devote large amounts of time working on them. I'd love to see those folks be able to charge for some cool content rather than having to rely on donations which, less face it, are more than likely going to pale in comparison to a piece of priced content.

To be clear, I thought the proposed implementation was weak as all hell but I was disappointed to see the objection focusing on the idea of paid mods in general, rather than the flaws in what Valve and Bethesda were proposing.

Taylor365 wrote: »

Should they be entitled to charge? Sure! Would i pay? No. In this age, you can pick up new releases a few months down the line for under €20. Thief, a full AAA game a year on is under €10. If they were priced right and polished with a clear demo, I'd have no problem paying 20-60c a mod. (Which would have cost me €36 at max price xD)

This is a very different argument obviously but not everyone thinks the current price fluctuation in AAA games is a positive thing. In this particular case it completely distorts the debate because the concept of value gets thrown out the window. On top of that, when you're discussing mods you can technically be talking about anything from smaller assets to huge Falskaar-scale add-ons.

Taylor365

gizmo wrote: »

Yada yada

Exactly. €2 for a fishing mod. How do you value falskaar, with actors and 30(ish) hours gameplay? Madness!

People were adding up what their mods COULD have cost them. Figures of hundreds and even thousands were splashed about.

Poorly managed introduction with little thought. I'm sure the next iterations from Bethesda will include a fleshed out market workshop, whether integrated with steam, or, standalone.

EoinHef

Just finished listening to TB's podcast with Robin Scott(Owner of ModNexus) and Nick McCasky (Author of SMIM).

Some interesting view points and a good listen. Dont agree with everything they say but they make some very good points and id broadly agree with the tone of the podcast

Over the last few days ive been reading Scotts blog posts on the nexus and found them very interesting and i have a very similar viewpoint.

Varik

Any mp3 rss for total biscuit, can only see sound cloud.

gizmo

EoinHef wrote: »

Just finished listening to TB's podcast with Robin Scott(Owner of ModNexus) and Nick McCasky (Author of SMIM).

Some interesting view points and a good listen. Dont agree with everything they say but they make some very good points and id broadly agree with the tone of the podcast

Over the last few days ive been reading Scotts blog posts on the nexus and found them very interesting and i have a very similar viewpoint.

Yea, I read his Service Provider post from a few days ago. It was probably one of the best responses I had read on the issue to date. Do not read the comments underneath it though.

There was a bit of additional info on the Kotaku piece too, here. While the user comments can, generally speaking, be safely ignored. The data provided by the modders themselves made for some pretty bleak reading.