104 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

However, one need not release a mod to find a toolset useful. I've used the DA:O toolset for research and personal modifications. This isn't relevant to your overall point unless they go for a really low price, of course.... $5 or so.

I don't disagree that the presence of mods is immensely useful to gamers. It's just that if where you are placing the price tag is for the modkit itself, you are going to have a proposition that fails. You engender a "have-have not" mentality AND it doesn't recoup nearly enough money to cover the expense. That's not a good position to argue from.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd pay $100 for the modkit even if I never released a mod with it.  It's just fun to play with them.

 

And I've said before that I think modern games are priced too low.

[addiction21]

Only if those that wanted to use the mods made had to pay as well.

[Selene Moonsong]

From what I know of through my long history with BioWare games...

 

When BioWare developed the Aurora Game engine (the engine platform for Neverwinter Nights, also referred to as NWN and the sequels), they struck gold. I believe that NWN was originally intended as a D&D game development system where owners could create their own campaigns to share with others. The game came with a fairly extensive toolset that could, relatively speaking, make it easy to design and build with. 

 

Back then there were also a few outstanding do-it-yourself designers (fans) who made excellent content that they shared and were fully supported by BioWare. I know of one who was actually hired by BioWare because his work was good enough to compete with professionals doing the same kinds of work.

 

The Aurora game engine is also the core game engine used for the the development of The Witcher and modified to fit the the needs of that game, and is also the original core for Neverwinter Nights 2 by Obsidian, that they modified into the Electron Electron engine. NWN 2 also came with a developer's toolkit, just like its predecessor. 

 

As games evolved, however, these relatively lightweight game development systems gave way to the Unreal development system and beyond. These latter development systems are much more complex systems and BioWare did eventually provide a toolset for Dragon Age: Origins that works in concert with the game though without the underlying game engine and allows those who enjoy modding games to mod Origins.

 

So no, it is not unrealistic to ask BioWare for a toolset with the capabilities to mod the game but, unlike games based on the Unreal engine that has had a publicly available development toolkit available to use for learning for some time now, the newest game engines, do not yet make their game engines publicly available as a learning tool, at least not to my knowledge.

 

The important thing to remember that the tools used by professional developers these days purchase licenses to use them and those licenses usually have very strict conditions placed on them and likely cannot be sub licensed or allowed to be used by others. 

 

The good that I can see coming from development or tool kits is not the ability to mod a given game but that the tool kits often generate the interest of those who would like to learn game development and who move on to development careers, but these are actually few and far between these days.

[Fast Jimmy]

Selene Moonsong, on 21 Jun 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

 

 

From what I know of through my long history with BioWare games...

 

When BioWare developed the Aurora Game engine (the engine platform for Neverwinter Nights, also referred to as NWN and the sequels), they struck gold. I believe that NWN was originally intended as a D&D game development system where owners could create their own campaigns to share with others. The game came with a fairly extensive toolset that could, relatively speaking, make it easy to design and build with.

Except insofar as "struck gold," you mean that it was middling financial success.

 

They made a good modding platform that they wound up seeing very minimal residual return on. The premium pieces of content that Bioware developed and tried to sell were of a somewhat equitable quality to what the modders were able to create for themselves for free. 

 

If they had been smart and monetized the modding system then... well, as you point out, The Witcher (1) was a game created off of a modified version of the NWN Aurora engine.

 

 

 

So no, it is not unrealistic to ask BioWare for a toolset with the capabilities to mod the game but, unlike games based on the Unreal engine that has had a publicly available development toolkit available to use for learning for some time now, the newest game engines, do not yet make their game engines publicly available as a learning tool, at least not to my knowledge.

 

The important thing to remember that the tools used by professional developers these days purchase licenses to use them and those licenses usually have very strict conditions placed on them and likely cannot be sub licensed or allowed to be used by others.

 

I'm slightly confused... you say it is not unrealistic for Bioware to include a toolset to mod the game, but then explain why it is highly unrealistic that Bioware would provide a toolset...?

 

 

 

The good that I can see coming from development or tool kits is not the ability to mod a given game but that the tool kits often generate the interest of those who would like to learn game development and who move on to development careers, but these are actually few and far between these days.

 

Which is nice and all... but ultimately something that Bioware sees ZERO return on. 

 

That's not to say no game development company should make modkits - the community benefits greatly from them doing so. But it should probably be the development houses that own all of their own engines as well as software tools, and not Bioware, who does not (and would have to spend significant amounts of money, one way or another, to cover that difference).

 

Bioware does not have a vested interest in the world having better modders or even future professional video game developers. Yes, the talent pool for the industry goes up, but that talent pool rises for the competition just as much as it rises for Bioware and, honestly, the talent level is high enough in the current market that EA has its pick from the litter when it comes to talented amateurs looking to move into the professional leagues. 

 

 

 

Again, this entire picture changes if Bioware was making some money off of each (or, at least, SOME) mod distributed. Suddenly, you don't have a large upfront investment with only intangible benefits down the line in terms of longevity, customer goodwill and skilled fans, but an actual revenue stream that creates income steadily across time. That's the real solution - have the toolkits be a situation where if Bioware doesn't make it, they are leaving money on the table. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd pay $100 for the modkit even if I never released a mod with it.  It's just fun to play with them.

 

And I've said before that I think modern games are priced too low.

 

I know you would. And maybe there are 500 other people on these boards or at the Nexus who would too.

 

But $50,000 is a drop in the bucket for development costs. DICE has an entire studio now developed to nothing but the improvement and refinement of Frostbite. Dozens, if not hundreds, of employees are working on Frostbite and its rollout across all EA games and IPs in the next coming years. $50K would barely pay two people's annual salary. 

 

 

Now, as someone above mentioned, one could always have a modest price to enable the ability to USE the mods. Say, $5 to be able to use mods and then $50 for the toolset. Depending on the adoption rate of the $5 mod feature, that might be a way to truly balance costs. But it would likely be susceptible to hacks and other exploitations, not to mention something where ANY price point may scare people away.

 

But back to topic - outright high dollar payments by individuals only work on microscale projects. A huge project like DA:I where developments costs tens of millions of dollars, finds justification for new, large development requests only when you are talking about hundreds of thousands of new sales or millions more in revenue. 

[addiction21]

I don't like how people change what someone spent months or years working on just so they can like it better. That's like approving of someone who gives the Mona Lisa a mustache because they think it'd be better with one. 

 

First comparing drawing a mustache to what it takes is just wrong. Those that cn and choose to make mods it takes a lot more then pulling a marker out of your pocket to draw a few lines.

 

Second we are not talking about a one of a kind piece of work that can never be reproduced. A closer analogy would be someone getting a poster of the Mona Lisa and choosing to paint a mustache onto it.

 

Third modders can and have worked months and years on that work. Yes it can be about tailoring the game to fit them better but just as much if not more its adding to or improving on what is already there.

 

And I am sorry but it sounds as if you think those modders have some disrespect for the work or creators and that is just not the case. Most I have known do what they do because they like the work but are able to add something to it. Something that they were able to do (that yes might be what they want) but the devs did not have time.

 

I don't expect many around here to be familiar with Home World 2 (there is a HD remake coming out so check them out) but http://www.moddb.com...world-2-complex is not just a mod. Its a compilation of a dozen mods plus mods, worked on for years, pulled together in 2009 to make a big release in 2010 and that's all for a game that was released in 2003.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I know you would. And maybe there are 500 other people on these boards or at the Nexus who would too.

 

But $50,000 is a drop in the bucket for development costs. DICE has an entire studio now developed to nothing but the improvement and refinement of Frostbite. Dozens, if not hundreds, of employees are working on Frostbite and its rollout across all EA games and IPs in the next coming years. $50K would barely pay two people's annual salary. 

 

 

Now, as someone above mentioned, one could always have a modest price to enable the ability to USE the mods. Say, $5 to be able to use mods and then $50 for the toolset. Depending on the adoption rate of the $5 mod feature, that might be a way to truly balance costs. But it would likely be susceptible to hacks and other exploitations, not to mention something where ANY price point may scare people away.

 

But back to topic - outright high dollar payments by individuals only work on microscale projects. A huge project like DA:I where developments costs tens of millions of dollars, finds justification for new, large development requests only when you are talking about hundreds of thousands of new sales or millions more in revenue. 

You only serve to remind me how little game design used to cost.

 

My favourite games were designed by teams of dozens, at most.  Some were made by whole companies that employed fewer than 20 people, including admin staff.

 

In many respects, microscale projects are better projects.

[Fast Jimmy]

You only serve to remind me how little game design used to cost.

 

My favourite games were designed by teams of dozens, at most.  Some were made by whole companies that employed fewer than 20 people, including admin staff.

 

In many respects, microscale projects are better projects.

 

I don't disagree. Smaller indie projects today that are utilizing advances in technology to create games that were similar to lower production games of the past with even smaller teams, budgets and timetables are, to me, the smarter investments. But that's a different discussion entirely.

 

 

Does the core of the engine rely on third party software?  Is that necessarily the case going forward?

 

And doesn't an active call for mod tools drive EA's competitors as well?

 

You're being far too defeatist.

 

I will never accept that modding isn't allowed.  This computer sitting here is mine.  I own it.  The electrons on the HDD are also mine.  I can do what I like with them.

 

To be fair, modding is not disallowed without a toolset. It is just incredibly tedious.

 

 

And I have to be self-defeating. Otherwise I'd never lose.

[slimgrin]

I don't like how people change what someone spent months or years working on just so they can like it better. That's like approving of someone who gives the Mona Lisa a mustache because they think it'd be better with one. 

 

Creative content is not restricted. So, sorry. Duchamp gets to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa and we get mods for Skryrim. Lemme guess...you only game on a console? Life is cruel.

 

Anyway, I'd pay for modding tools, better than not getting them at all, despite the tradition for years now has been getting them for free. 

[AlanC9]

I don't disagree that the presence of mods is immensely useful to gamers. It's just that if where you are placing the price tag is for the modkit itself, you are going to have a proposition that fails. You engender a "have-have not" mentality AND it doesn't recoup nearly enough money to cover the expense. That's not a good position to argue from.

 

Have-have not isn't important. But I agree that a price point of $5 is unrealistic. There are a fair number of people who would buy at $5 , but not that many.

[robertthebard]

If the supposed 2000 DA modders could make some noise for mod tools once DA:I gets released, they might do it.

There aren't 2,000 modders, there are 2,000 mods. Some of the top mods are collaborations of several modders, and if you read through it, you may find about 200 modders. There may be more, but really, we're talking about a game that has a free toolset. While I understand that forum populations aren't representative, we have the same 4 or 5 people insisting a toolset is needed. Here's the ironic rub, for me: Some of the mods available, in multiples are nude body models, Alistair and Morrigan are modded to be playersexual, a concept, btw that met harsh resistance in DA ][. Even some of the more involved mods are simply showcases for nude models.

So no, for these premises, I don't see the need for tools. Now, if we could do NWN style mods, where we host our own server, and tell our own stories in the DA universe? I'd be all for it. I was way involved in the NWN scene, and even dabbled in the NWN 2 scene, mostly script help for others though. These are the things I would like a toolset for. Converting Sera to player sexuality so that she can be romanced with a male Inquisitor? Not so much.

[TurretSyndrome]

Here's the ironic rub, for me: Some of the mods available, in multiples are nude body models, Alistair and Morrigan are modded to be playersexual, a concept, btw that met harsh resistance in DA ][. Even some of the more involved mods are simply showcases for nude models.

 

So? Who cares if someone comes up with nude mods or romance related mods. It's not like they're forcing them down people's throats. Either you use them or you don't, there's no reason to complain about their existence. I'm someone who dislikes the playersexual characters of DA 2 but I didn't have a problem with Alistair being playersexual through a mod, because that is what it is, a mod. Taking that seriously, to me, is just as ridiculous as taking someone's fanfiction seriously. The only time I objected to something related to such mods was when someone was asking the devs to "edit" Alistair so they may preserve their M-M romance with him in DA Keep that they had through the use of the mod. 

 

As for not requiring tools, how do you know? The game seems to be very big and very accessible this time around, and I'd like access to it's assets. If the tool can give me proper editing power over the in-game elements, be it creatures, objects, characters, weather etc, why not? Creating content with officially released tools is always the most efficient and safest.

 

I think your issue is not with allowing access to modders but with what they do with it. If people want to change Sera to include heterosexual romance, let them. What's it to you? Neither is it affecting you in anyway, nor will it ever make it's way to the actual game.

 

In any case, it seems the only reason they were not able to release a mod tool for the game this time is because of the switch to the new engine and the usage of third party tools, and not because they have opinions like "we don't want modders changing the work of our artists because we think it's disrespectful" or "we're afraid of our characters going nude and playersexual".

[Trikormadenadon]

I play on console so I don't get to enjoy the Mods like PC users do. However, it would be nice if some of the best Mods were made available on consoles as well but I have no idea how that could happen.

[Shapeshifter777]

No, I don't want to sound like a scrub expecting something for free, but I fundamentally believe that having a modding community is based on providing free tools. Modding is all volunteer work, fans who love the world/game/lore so much that they want to create and contribute their own content. The minute you put up a pay-wall is the minute you are contradicting the very nature and philosophy of having a modding community. Games like Counter-Strike and Skryim have thriving modding communities that would never exist if there was a pay-wall for their tools. 

 

You're right in that Skyrim's modding community wouldn't be anywhere near as large as it is today if the tools costed money, but I myself still would have paid a large sum for the Creation Kit.

 

 

I play on console so I don't get to enjoy the Mods like PC users do. However, it would be nice if some of the best Mods were made available on consoles as well but I have no idea how that could happen.

 

 

That would be technically possible, if Bioware are the ones who picked out the best ones and then made them available on Xbox Live or PSN.  However, they wouldn't be free.  I'm not sure about PSN, but Microsoft charges developers a certain amount to host their DLC files on XBL, so it would at least cost enough to cover that.

[In Exile]

A little, yeah. You're disrespecting someone else's work.

 

I can see that argument if the creater objects to you modifying their work (see e.g. GRRM's anti fan-fiction views), but not when the developers actively encourage you to modify their work (e.g. Bestheda games). 

[Quyk Sylvyr]

I enjoy using mods, and I actually don't think the developers have been upset by most of the mods.  Just for the record - David Gaider has actually discussed his viewpoint as a developer regarding player mods like Alistair marrying a mage.  http://tmblr.co/ZIsNnt1AmNQAG

 

Having said that, I doubt paying for the ability to mod would work.  First as Fast Jimmy pointed out, the actual expeses are much higher than would most modders would likely pay.  Second, I honestly don't think charging for the toolset would go over well with the community in general.  People's first reaction would be "WTF.  Bioware now you're charging X amount for the toolset.  Your company is a greedy evil bloodsucking corpse."

[Elhanan]

Not for me, as I am rather Techless. However, I could see to help another that wants to make mods, worlds, host games, etc

[Selene Moonsong]

Except insofar as "struck gold," you mean that it was middling financial success.

I mean in the context of providing a toolkit as opposed to the overall provided game. NWN played more towards those interested in modding a game and building their own campaigns. The multi-player capabilities were also a reason for the longevity of NWN, there are still groups who continue to play their home-brewed campaigns online.
 
 

I'm slightly confused... you say it is not unrealistic for Bioware to include a toolset to mod the game, but then explain why it is highly unrealistic that Bioware would provide a toolset...?

 

Yes it is a bit confusing because it is a very complex issue.

It is not unrealistic in the sense that BioWare has provided tool sets for some of their games in the past and some see that as setting a precedent: specifically NWN was intended for game licensees (those who bought the game) to be able to create their own D&D campaigns and share them with friends and the NWN community at large. They also provided a toolkit for DA Origins, although the game itself was not intended to be modified by the consumer, thus setting another perceived precedent.

Those of us who have spent time using the toolsets in NWN, NWN 2, and DA Origins are more likely to share an interest in seeing the toolset offerings of the past continue into the future as well, and I share willingness to pay extra for such tools.

The complexity of whether or not it's a realistic expectation by consumers to hope for toolset availability now and in the future must take in several factors:

1. Personal computers are currently on a down-turn in popularity as a gaming platform and have been giving way to console systems and "Apps" on other hardware/OS platforms and PC's are now a much smaller audience for games.

2. Game engines are becoming much more complex and more expensive to license, along with other applications and tools used by developers as well. Along with those licenses comes a lot of restrictions and may impact the developer's ability to provide a tool kit for future games.

In summary, as much as I would like to see and am willing to pay for a toolset for games like Dragon Age: Inquisition and future releases based of Mass Effect or other new games from BioWare, it would seem more and more unlikely to happen unless a game were to be developed with the similar intentional design of Neverwinter Nights to allow gamers to create their own worlds or campaigns.

Edited to fix quotes

[General TSAR]

I would pay 100 bucks if they included moding tools for consoles, but that won't ever happen.

[Fast Jimmy]

I would pay 100 bucks if they included moding tools for consoles, but that won't ever happen.

Well, to be honest, it's actually not that outside the realm of possibility. EA picked Frostbite because the engine itself had excellent ability to move content between all platforms easily. It can handle transferring asses between PC, current gen and next gen console builds with relative ease. The tools for modding FOR consoles would possibly be not (extremely) difficult to pull off.

Now... modding ON consoles is a different matter. Consoles are usually a poor means of modding, except in the most simplified, told based designs.

But even if a toolkit for DA:I was supplied and Frostbite did allow modders to create more for consoles, the means of transfer would be the next problem. XBL and the PSN will not allow mods to be transferred through their online services, as a risk that it could make the game, the console or any of the ancillary services (like the XB1's snap-to-dash feature) would be rendered broken. So gamers would have to download the mods on their PC's, load them to a flash drive or other portable media the console would accept, and install them that way, which is not exactly consumer friendly.

You'd need Sony and MS to change their tunes on mods before seriously expecting Bioware to be able to provide any assistance in getting console modding off the ground.

[ShinsFortress]

No.  And I'd rather there was no modding at all.  So many of DA:O problems were 'fixed' with mods.  It shouldn't have to be that way.

 

If the new game did not have modding, maybe they'd be incentivised to get it right, or they know what would happen.

[azrael_1289]

I don't like how people change what someone spent months or years working on just so they can like it better. That's like approving of someone who gives the Mona Lisa a mustache because they think it'd be better with one. 

You do realize changing existing things is only a part of what modders do right? There are cases of entirely new content built from scratch using mod tools which could be from something as simple as new weapon/armor skins to new maps to new game modes to entirely new campaigns to entirely new games. So, it's like drawing a new painting with the same arts supplies as the one used to paint Mona Lisa.