611 réponses à ce sujet

[Solmanian]

The whole concept of microtransactions rely on you not "needing" them, but at the same time severely diminishing your gameplay if you don't use them. They HAVE to do that or people won't be motivated to use it. With DLC's you atleast know what you get: addons. They add to the game. You could easily finish ME2, ME3, DA:O and DA2 without the DLC's and have a complete experience, but the DLC's enriched the games.

[addiction21]

Addai67 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Developer supported modding has been and is mostly dead. If you and the rest of the PC crowd are unwilling to give a inch then it will continue down that path.

Bethesda?  CDPR?  What do you mean "not give an inch"?  I said I'd kick in for a modkit, and if a mod creator I really liked asked for Paypal donations I'd kick in, too.

If their is no incentive to providing it then why should anyone bother with it? Other then to make some anonymous person on the internet happy because they may or may not like the games and/or mods provided.

There is an incentive.  Even Bioware devs have said this.  It extends the life of the game.

These microtransactions are nothing more then developer made and supported mods.

The point, it has arrived!  Developers can choose their own business model, that's up to them.  I'll choose which ones I support with my gaming dollars.  I like the business model that seeks to increase sales by giving lots of value for the base game price hoping for positive word of mouth and sales of substantive, quality DLC.  I don't like the business model that seeks to strip down the base game and nickel-and-dime lots of piddly content.

Two names out of how many developers, publishers and games released every year? Like I said there is little incentive.

Yes you want lots of value for the base game... and then expect them to provide you more for free. That is the point. You want it for free and demand they give it to you for free. That they go to extensive lengths to pay out of their own pocket for free.
You got the game... elaborate as to why they should do anything else out side of that game for free. That includes making a toolkit or making sure on their own dime that it is easily moddable for a select group.

Do you actually have a reason for developers or publishers to support mods. Other then "I like free stuff?"

Modifié par addiction21, 25 janvier 2013 - 03:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

What do you mean "not give an inch"?  I said I'd kick in for a modkit, and if a mod creator I really liked asked for Paypal donations I'd kick in, too.

Bioware dev comments back in 2012 when this last came up said that they have looked at the numbers and charging for the modkits, for the small crowd who would actually be devoted enough to pay for it, would not be viable. Mostly because he amount of modkits installed is already small (limited only to PC players who have interest in the feature) but becomes even more so if you put a price tag on it. If, to make up numbers, only 20% of PC players would use a modkit and then only 5% of the PC players would buy a modkit if it was charged, then the kit would either cost a small fortune or Bioware wouldn't be able to cover their expenses (again, according to what was said). 

If, instead, modkits are free and certain mods are paid (not all, but some), Bioware has a chance to net a long-term revenue stream with only the upfront costs of a dev kit. In addition, mods could band together and possibly even make a professional endeavor out of creating the mods (or at least a semi-professional) where they could be rewarded for their efforts.

It's not a perfect model or one I'd be 100% happy to see come. But it is a better alternative than to just hope for something when the chances of that something happening are remote. 

There is an incentive.  Even Bioware devs have said this.  It extends the life of the game.

Something that has value. But not enough to get developers to invest in them. Not anymore. Again, another point Gaider acknowledged in this discussions few months ago. It does have value, Bioware is well aware of this value, but the possibility of a modkit at launch for DA3 is remote and is a tentative possibility post-release. 

So Bioware, a company that helped pioneer the concepts of fan created mods and deep developer toolkits, is saying that extending game life is something that mods do, but that it is not enough to justify the costs. I believe them. That's why I suggest a model that can bring that value to the table PLUS additional revenue (and financial incentive for the modder community, which could even possibly create entrepreneurial competition, with better mods for everyone). 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 03:49 .

[levyjl1988]

Bioware should just copy Bethesda in the way they do games.
1) Release Game
2) Release expansions
3) Repeat step 2.

No microtransactions, no small dlc, no preorder bonus, just simplicity at it's finest.
If Bioware is dedicated on making a great game then focus on the game, every other thought into how to extort money from the gamer shouldn't be evidenced.

Plus if Bioware holds itself to the strongest regard in crafting great games then the game should stand on its own, any other features like adding micro transactions just prove that their product isn't truly reliable to stand up against the rest of the competition out there.

There are other games competing for consumers wallets. And gamers will choose a game that fits their model. And from what I've seen a majority of consumers are totally against it.

[Fast Jimmy]

levyjl1988 wrote...

Bioware should just copy Bethesda in the way they do games.
1) Release Game
2) Release expansions
3) Repeat step 2.

No microtransactions, no small dlc, no preorder bonus, just simplicity at it's finest.
If Bioware is dedicated on making a great game then focus on the game, every other thought into how to extort money from the gamer shouldn't be evidenced.

Plus if Bioware holds itself to the strongest regard in crafting great games then the game should stand on its own, any other features like adding micro transactions just prove that their product isn't truly reliable to stand up against the rest of the competition out there.

There are other games competing for consumers wallets. And gamers will choose a game that fits their model. And from what I've seen a majority of consumers are totally against it.

...? Bethesda has already released numerous DLC for Skyrim. And Skyrim doesn't have any MP component, the only place where microtransactions have been seen in a Bioware game.

That being said, Bioware would be silly not to look at Bethesda, as one of their biggest competitors in the video game market. Copying their exact policies isn't likely (or, I'd guess, wise), but I'm sure they have noticed and are aware of them much more than we are.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware dev comments back in 2012 when this last came up said that they have looked at the numbers and charging for the modkits, for the small crowd who would actually be devoted enough to pay for it, would not be viable. Mostly because he amount of modkits installed is already small (limited only to PC players who have interest in the feature) but becomes even more so if you put a price tag on it. If, to make up numbers, only 20% of PC players would use a modkit and then only 5% of the PC players would buy a modkit if it was charged, then the kit would either cost a small fortune or Bioware wouldn't be able to cover their expenses (again, according to what was said). 

If, instead, modkits are free and certain mods are paid (not all, but some), Bioware has a chance to net a long-term revenue stream with only the upfront costs of a dev kit. 

Well, yeah..... the question is whether that hypothetical long-term revenue stream would cover the costs of the modkit any better than charging for the modkit would. 

[Addai]

addiction21 wrote...
Two names out of how many developers, publishers and games released every year? Like I said there is little incentive.

Skyrim was the biggest selling RPG last year, and maybe ever.  It's still one of the top played games on Steam over a year after its release.  Maybe developers ought to re-think.

Do you actually have a reason for developers or publishers to support mods. Other then "I like free stuff?"

Are you reading posts or just repeating the same thing over and over?  There is incentive because it gives the game legs.  It's the very same rationale that is being given out for adding MP.  But they should go ahead and go that route if they want.  It saves me money.

[addiction21]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That being said, Bioware would be silly not to look at Bethesda, as one of their biggest competitors in the video game market. Copying their exact policies isn't likely (or, I'd guess, wise), but I'm sure they have noticed and are aware of them much more than we are.

I do not see how they have been competitors other then they both make video games. You might as well say that chicken and beef are major competitors. They are both meat and that's about where it starts and ends.

Addai67 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...
Two names out of how many developers, publishers and games released every year? Like I said there is little incentive.

Skyrim was the biggest selling RPG last year, and maybe ever.  It's still one of the top played games on Steam over a year after its release.  Maybe developers ought to re-think.

Do you actually have a reason for developers or publishers to support mods. Other then "I like free stuff?"

Are you reading posts or just repeating the same thing over and over?  There is incentive because it gives the game legs.  It's the very same rationale that is being given out for adding MP.  But they should go ahead and go that route if they want.  It saves me money.

And you will now provide evidence that Skyrim is the "biggest selling RPG" and "top played on steam" because of mods? Right?

I am reading posts and it keeps coming down to "give us mods for free" You say " I would pay for it" but that does not work. The cost for providing a toolkit for the smallest section of the consumers is risky to say the least. Not to mention those that actually make use of them is even smaller.

Ohm right and you still not addressed how you could only name two developers out of the many that provide toolkits. One has been doing it for a while and the other is rather new around the woods. If it was so succesfull and added so much "leg" to the game why haven't the beancounters picked up on this?

Modifié par addiction21, 25 janvier 2013 - 05:03 .

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Bioware dev comments back in 2012 when this last came up said that they have looked at the numbers and charging for the modkits, for the small crowd who would actually be devoted enough to pay for it, would not be viable.

I wouldn't expect it to cover all the costs, just offset.

I don't see how a system of paid mods could ever work.  This is pie in the sky, and no developer is going to want to take resposibility for refunding customers if mods break people's games or just don't work.  It's crazy talk.

Something that has value. But not enough to get developers to invest in them. Not anymore. Again, another point Gaider acknowledged in this discussions few months ago. It does have value, Bioware is well aware of this value, but the possibility of a modkit at launch for DA3 is remote and is a tentative possibility post-release. 

Bioware could still do it if they wanted, but EA has a different approach to gaming.  Good for them, bad for gamers.  Except I'm not sure it's even good for them, but that's something they have to determine.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 janvier 2013 - 04:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware dev comments back in 2012 when this last came up said that they have looked at the numbers and charging for the modkits, for the small crowd who would actually be devoted enough to pay for it, would not be viable.

But that's going about it the wrong way.  They could make the modkit free, but charge for the ability to install the finished mods.  So, for no fee, you could make your own mods, but if you wanted to install mods made by the broader community you'd have to pay the fee.

And I see that you said something very similar in your following remarks.  Carry on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

But then you get the complaint that it should have been in the base game. What is your response to that?

Suck it up.  If you don't get any complaints, you're not being aggressive enough.  The goal should be to offer the highest quality product.

[addiction21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

But then you get the complaint that it should have been in the base game. What is your response to that?

Suck it up.  If you don't get any complaints, you're not being aggressive enough.  The goal should be to offer the highest quality product.

And if it is a quality product, Do we just move those goalposts when a DLC or armor pack gets released?

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

Solmanian wrote...

The whole concept of microtransactions rely on you not "needing" them, but at the same time severely diminishing your gameplay if you don't use them. They HAVE to do that or people won't be motivated to use it. With DLC's you atleast know what you get: addons. They add to the game. You could easily finish ME2, ME3, DA:O and DA2 without the DLC's and have a complete experience, but the DLC's enriched the games.

My favorite heavy weapon in Mass Effect 2 was the particle beam. Where was it in Mass Effect 3?

Oh wait...it was available for purchase via microtransaction. Which I didn't buy, because I had just dropped 60 hard-earned dollars on a game I expected to be complete. What an insult. Take out good content from previous installments and try to sell it seperately. Piece-meal. Not appreciated as a customer.

Modifié par sympathy4sarenreturns, 25 janvier 2013 - 05:38 .

[Joy Divison]

addiction21 wrote...

Two names out of how many developers, publishers and games released every year? Like I said there is little incentive.

Yes you want lots of value for the base game... and then expect them to provide you more for free. That is the point. You want it for free and demand they give it to you for free. That they go to extensive lengths to pay out of their own pocket for free.
You got the game... elaborate as to why they should do anything else out side of that game for free. That includes making a toolkit or making sure on their own dime that it is easily moddable for a select group.

Do you actually have a reason for developers or publishers to support mods. Other then "I like free stuff?"

If you aren't actually going to read her posts, why bother engaging in a discussion?

[Joy Divison]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

...? Bethesda has already released numerous DLC for Skyrim. And Skyrim doesn't have any MP component, the only place where microtransactions have been seen in a Bioware game.

Umm...DA:2 had lots of "the best weapons/armor/equipment is available only through purchase and not questing" add ons.  From what I gather from this thread, those are microtransactions.

Whatever you decide to call it, I say it sucks.

[Kalas Magnus]

Ghost1017 wrote...

With news that states Dead Space 3 will feature microtransactions, I believe now would be the perfect time to discuss microtransactions in DA3. I do not want microtransactions in DA3.

i am ok with it. 

meh.

Ninja Stan wrote...

If you don't like microtransactions, it is generally a good idea to not purchase them. They should not be required to enjoy or finish a game, but are available for those who want that sort of content. Seems like a simple enough deal.

pretty much this. 

Modifié par Kalas321, 25 janvier 2013 - 08:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Bioware dev comments back in 2012 when this last came up said that they have looked at the numbers and charging for the modkits, for the small crowd who would actually be devoted enough to pay for it, would not be viable.

I wouldn't expect it to cover all the costs, just offset.

It could help offset costs, but then the flak Bioware would get for charging $25, $50 or even $75 for a mod kit would be a whole hassle to deal with on top of that. If they are going to charge for the kit, they likely don't want to add a PR workload unless it actually has some way of paying for the process or, heaven forbid, they actually turn a profit.

Selling modkits won't make them real money, but it WILL create real headaches for them above and beyond giving it away for free. There's billing questions. Legal questions. Quality questions (people don't often complain about the quality of free stuff as vehmently as the quality of paid stuff). Etc.

I don't see how a system of paid mods could ever work.  This is pie in the sky, and no developer is going to want to take resposibility for refunding customers if mods break people's games or just don't work.  It's crazy talk.

See, I don't think it is. 

Perhaps I didn't go into enough detail in this thread (I've talked about it a few times in others, so it all runs together, my apologies).

The modkit would be free. Mods could be created by players/modders for free. If they wanted to make them available for the whole community, they would need to do so through a web portal, otherwise the mods would not be recognized as valid and load on someone else's computer. 

This site would be run by Bioware. Mod file size is the easiest gauge I can think of to determine pricing, but I'm sure there might be a more logical one. Regardless, the file is uploaded to the portal. If it is under a certain file size threshold, it is tagged as free and is available for the community to download without issue.

If it is over that file size, the person submitting it must enter into a modder agreement with Bioware, where they must set up a PayPal account and where they waive the right for distribution of the mods (so that Bioware can move it to other mediums and to prevent the modder from making the mod available for a reduced price or free on their own website). Alternatively, this process can be begun before the mod is ready to be uploaded.

The mod (again, if it is of the size threshold to be charged for) would be reviewed and QR'd by Bioware for any huge faults or game-breaking bugs. Once approved, it would be available via the web portal (possibly the BSN, or possibly a system like EA's Origin). The pricing on these mods would be VERY low, by nature. $1, $2 at most. As I said earlier, the idea is for them to be cheaper than a Coke. Profits are split 50-50 between Bioware and modder for the PC.

Then, after six/nine/twelve months, Bioware packages all the best selling paid mods (as well as some of the more popular free mods as well, with modder permission, of course), adds a large amount of polish and development smoothness, and packages them as paid DLC for consoles, reaching a MUCH larger audience than before. Due to the added costs Bioware incurs packaging the mods together as a DLC and the distribution costs for XBL and the PSN, the modders have their cut reduced back.This cutback will be much (MUCH) smaller, but that is because of the fact that 10 or 15 mods would all be bundled into one DLC. However, like most DLC, it will probably sell for $10, so the amount of revenue would offset, as would the larger volume the console market is paid.  Still, if they are successful enough to make the console DLC mod bundle, the modders would have already had a solid amount of sales. 

Point is, Bioware makes money and gets to be seen as helping out the little guy by giving tools and payment structure. The modder gets the toolkit they would normally not get in this industry climate AND gets a chance to make money. The PC playerts get a wide swath of free mod content still and the ability to pick and choose which ones they want for free and which ones they will pay for. And console players will finally get a chance to install mods, something they NEVER had the opportunity to do before, where they were stuck with the vanilla game and DLC only.

Again, its not ideal. But it DOES have benefits. And it also doesn't require going to Bioware and say "Gimme, gimme, gimme! I want it all for free!"

Bioware could still do it if they wanted, but EA has a different approach to gaming.  Good for them, bad for gamers.  Except I'm not sure it's even good for them, but that's something they have to determine.

I'm not so sure of this. There have been EA games with modkits. There have been Bioware games without them.

I don't want to violate the USFEO of 2013 anymore than I already have in this thread, but I think we would be wiser to not lay some things at the feet of EA and others at the feet of Bioware. We don't know who is making that call. And we don't know if the costs to make modkits have spiraled in recent years just like other game development costs have. I would assume so. So giving a toolset free may still cost (arbitrarily) 5% of the project budget... but that 5% is a much bigger actual sum of money to give away with the only hope of extending shelf life than it was fifteen, ten or even five years ago. 

Anyway, I like my suggestion. For many reasons. It has a way to reward modders who pour their lives into the mods they make, it allows freedom of choice in what mods you are willing to pay for and which ones you will settle for free and, perhaps biggest of all, it gets the console crowd in on the modding community. More people involved in the creative endeavor process is only a good thing for a community that seems to shrink by the year.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 02:12 .

[Joy Divison]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

See, I don't think it is. 

Perhaps I didn't go into enough detail in this thread (I've talked about it a few times in others, so it all runs together, my apologies).

The modkit would be free. Mods could be created by players/modders for free. If they wanted to make them available for the whole community, they would need to do so through a web portal, otherwise the mods would not be recognized as valid and load on someone else's computer. 

This site would be run by Bioware. Mod file size is the easiest gauge I can think of to determine pricing, but I'm sure there might be a more logical one. Regardless, the file is uploaded to the portal. If it is under a certain file size threshold, it is tagged as free and is available for the community to download without issue.

If it is over that file size, the person submitting it must enter into a modder agreement with Bioware, where they must set up a PayPal account and where they waive the right for distribution of the mods (so that Bioware can move it to other mediums and to prevent the modder from making the mod available for a reduced price or free on their own website). Alternatively, this process can be begun before the mod is ready to be uploaded.

The mod (again, if it is of the size threshold to be charged for) would be reviewed and QR'd by Bioware for any huge faults or game-breaking bugs. Once approved, it would be available via the web portal (possibly the BSN, or possibly a system like EA's Origin). The pricing on these mods would be VERY low, by nature. $1, $2 at most. As I said earlier, the idea is for them to be cheaper than a Coke. Profits are split 50-50 between Bioware and modder for the PC.

Then, after six/nine/twelve months, Bioware packages all the best selling paid mods (as well as some of the more popular free mods as well, with modder permission, of course), adds a large amount of polish and development smoothness, and packages them as paid DLC for consoles, reaching a MUCH larger audience than before. Due to the added costs Bioware incurs packaging the mods together as a DLC and the distribution costs for XBL and the PSN, the modders have their cut reduced back.This cutback will be much (MUCH) smaller, but that is because of the fact that 10 or 15 mods would all be bundled into one DLC. However, like most DLC, it will probably sell for $10, so the amount of revenue would offset, as would the larger volume the console market is paid.  Still, if they are successful enough to make the console DLC mod bundle, the modders would have already had a solid amount of sales. 

Point is, Bioware makes money and gets to be seen as helping out the little guy by giving tools and payment structure. The modder gets the toolkit they would normally not get in this industry climate AND gets a chance to make money. The PC playerts get a wide swath of free mod content still and the ability to pick and choose which ones they want for free and which ones they will pay for. And console players will finally get a chance to install mods, something they NEVER had the opportunity to do before, where they were stuck with the vanilla game and DLC only.

Again, its not ideal. But it DOES have benefits. And it also doesn't require going to Bioware and say "Gimme, gimme, gimme! I want it all for free!"

Wait, what?  You want to charge people for downloading mods?  Are you serious?  This is such a bad idea I can't believe someone who normally has thoughtful posts actually thinks it’s a viable.

As if microtransactions aren't bad enough, now your are fundamentally changing how modders and the mod community have operated - successfully and for the benefit of all involved (i.e. game developer and player) - and turning mods into a corporatized entity where you're charging people for stuff nobody wants or expects money to be involved.  Did you attend some EA stockholders meeting or something?

Mods absolutely extend the lifespan of a game and expand its audience. Developers have absolutely every incentive for modders to do their thing.

Modders do not want or expect to be paid.  They make their creations because they love the games.

Customers certainly do not want to pay for mods.  I am not going to pay 50 cents to change the butt ugly arch-mages robes should that filesize exceed the free limit.  Partly because the idea is repellent.  Partly because some mods are, shall we say, "works in progress" and get quickly deleted.  Partly because I'm just curious about mods, not serious about incorporating them.  Mostly because I hate paying for something for a game i already paid for.

I don't think console players are screaming for mods otherwise they wouldn't be playing on consoles.  Since when does catering to an apathetic community make any sense at all?

Modding has worked fine for the past twenty years and worked precisely because there is no money involved. You actually said if a modder wanted to share their mod, it would HAVE to go through Bioware, otherwise would not be recognized as VALID.  Really?  What if I just want to share something with a few friends and play over a lan-line?  What if my mod is a work in progress and feel uncomfortable submitting a version that will be hosted and charged by a company I have no control over?  What if I have no desire to enter in an agreement with Bioware?  I have to according to your model otherwise it would be piracy.  Mods are like good joints.  Meant to be passed around and shared between friends and like-minded people just to enjoy it.  You wouldn't charge a buddy or even a stranger at a party nor would you expect them to cough up money.

Go look up the Nexus site.  All those mods were created because people loved the game, not because they expected or wanted to get paid.  Tools like their modmanager are again made by people who just want to serve the
modding community and do not ever expect to make a dime.  That these mods exist is the only reason why I still play Skyrim.  Bethesda is smart enough to recognize that inserting its grubby hands into the process would cause a major unwanted disruption that would ruin the whole process.  And why should they?  They have in essence unpaid programmers, marketers,and artists extending the shelf life of their product.  

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 janvier 2013 - 05:48 .

[Addai]

addiction21 wrote...
And you will now provide evidence that Skyrim is the "biggest selling RPG" and "top played on steam" because of mods? Right?

Ask any PC Skyrim player what is extending the game for them.  Hint- it's not the paid DLC, though when you're still playing a game you're more likely to buy the DLCs.  Some people have bought the game twice because they got a console version first and wanted to take advantage of PC mods.

Ohm right and you still not addressed how you could only name two developers out of the many that provide toolkits. One has been doing it for a while and the other is rather new around the woods. If it was so succesfull and added so much "leg" to the game why haven't the beancounters picked up on this?

I'm aware it's an investment in the longevity of the game, and for Bioware there are probably other factors, such as their games being more cinematic.  Really, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, I don't care if they choose to continue not providing mod support and instead charge for item and weapon packs.  That just means I'm less likely to buy their games.  The point is that some developers not only consider mod support a viable route to support their games, it's a desirable one, and as a player I'm more likely to support those developers.

EntropicAngel wrote...

Bethesa, as I seem to say with increasing frequency, has a cash cow, you know. Two, now.

Bioware could have had two cash cows, as well.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 janvier 2013 - 04:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Joy Division wrote...
snip

Changing the textures of one robe that looks, as you quote, butt ugly, would likely not make the cut to be a paid-mod. The Alley of Murders mod, which includes tons of animations, tiles, locations, dialogue, combat, etc., would. I'd say 99% of cosmetic mods (better robes, better faces, better hats, better hair) would fall under the "not going to be charged" model. They are small, isolated things. Players would still feel free to create, experiment and test out these mods for free.

If mods, however, are large affairs that create lots of new story content, lots of new mechanics (like the mod for Fallout 3 which included thirst/hunger mechanics and required rebalancing the loot drops throughout the entire game to include the right amount of these resources), then these would fall under the umbrella of a paid mod.

For those mods which you mentioned as a "work in progress," maybe there could be a testing environment where modders looking for feedback could allow others modders to review their work that could have a limited time window before the mods "expired" on the other users PC.

By the way, to say "console players don't carry about modding, otherwise they wouldn't be console players" is a really flimsy argument. Maybe a player likes how the actual game plays and handles on a console versus the PC. Maybe they don't HAVE a gaming PC. Maybe they like the hundreds of other games on the console that aren't on the PC. So the fact that they don't have access to one feature (mod downloads) doesn't mean that they are inherently apathetic or uninterested in modding. It only means that they don't have the ability to use them.


I understand that many modders will be upset by such a suggestion. That modkits should pay for themselves in fan goodwill and product extension. Except it ONLY extends the product on the PC, which is a small fraction of total sales. As more and more games to cross-platform, you will see even less modkits in the future. For instance, The Witcher series transitioned to console post-release of the second game. I'd be curious to see if when the third game comes out, if a modkit will be sold with it.

And Bethesda is the only developer to consistently release mod toolkits for their games (Fallout and TES). Which is admirable. But they also have some of the highest selling RPGs franchises of all time (again, Fallout and TES). I'd be hard pressed to see many developers make a game for PC and console who also release free mod toolkits, which the PC crowd is the only one to use. If the PC is your only fanbase, it is a huge deal. If the PC is your minority fanbase and it is seen as something that only benefits them, it brings less value and, indeed, a small degree of harm (the good 'ole PC Master Race tag).

Your solution, continuing on as has been done for the past decade, has led to fewer and fewer developers for RPGs releasing kits. The few who still do are viewed as more exceptions to the rule than harbingers of the return of an old trend. My way has a chance at preserving mod kits, at the small price of a dollar or two for the most labour-intensive mods. It includes a income generation process. And it allows most cosmetic mods to still be installed, tweaked and fiddled with for absolutely free. And who knows? Maybe even some of the truly talented mods can band together and make a mod so good, it can turn into a part time gig for them, as opposed to an unpaid hobby.

My way offers the chance to give the modding community new life. The old way, on its current course, offers at best more of the same, at worst the death of modding in future games. Again, from what I have heard, modding Frostbite 2 without a toolkit is something like climbing a mountain with no legs.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 04:17 .

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Except it ONLY extends the product on the PC, which is a small fraction of total sales. As more and more games to cross-platform, you will see even less modkits in the future. For instance, The Witcher series transitioned to console post-release of the second game. I'd be curious to see if when the third game comes out, if a modkit will be sold with it. 

The "tiny and ever-shrinking PC fanbase," if it was ever a real trend, seems to be reversing itself.  It's hard to say because digital sales figures aren't released, but for Skyrim, for instance, the PC fanbase is probably about the same size as Xbox and larger than PS3.

TW3 will be made with the RED engine and REDKit is based on that engine, so at most it would need an update, not an entirely new modkit- as far as I understand these things, which admittedly isn't far.  From what I've read about it, it's capable of being a general level editor and not just for Witcher 2 mods.  I wouldn't be surprised if it could also be used to support their Cyberpunk franchise.