35 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

That's simplifying a complicated issue. It isn't just about having to pay for something that was free the issue is that when you pay for something you have expectations for it to work.

What happens if the mod breaks the game if an update? Money changes the rules of the game.

Higher quality expectations eventually turn to higher quality products. It's a bumpy road starting out, but that's the way of things.

I honestly think a three or six month delay from when the mod is posted to any payment of the modder might not be a bad idea. It prevents a lot of the "copyright" worries of people ripping off existing mods (such copying would be reported within six months or not be reported at all) and it would also deter "abandonware" mods, where a mod is made and then never maintained in future updates. Since this would reduce the amount of risk and upfront work on the part of the distributor (such as Steam), it could also potentially result in higher cuts for the creators.

Essentially, if a modder can create something that stands the test of time, they'd get their full cut on all sales of the mod once the six month mark hits. If, during that time, they are reported for copying other work or they get complaints about official updates breaking mods and no action is ever taken, they wouldn't see any of their cut. If they do, they'd get all of their "backpay" cut, as well as their cut from any ongoing sales in the future.

Of course, paid mods in general typically encourage partitioning out options into different mods. For instance, there wouldn't be a Game of Thrones mod for CK2, there would be a base one, then there would be the Essos expansion, then the new narrative situations, then different options/flavor, etc., all sold separately, instead of being bundled under one mod that was free. But as money comes in for modders, we also would likely see an increase in high quality free work to help promote paid mods (for instance, in the above example, it would make sense for a modder/group of modders to have the GoT mod be free, then sell the "extra" mods to generate revenue) to generate interest, advertise skill and promote their product.

[Fidite Nemini]

Higher quality expectations eventually turn to higher quality products. It's a bumpy road starting out, but that's the way of things.

I honestly think a three or six month delay from when the mod is posted to any payment of the modder might not be a bad idea. It prevents a lot of the "copyright" worries of people ripping off existing mods (such copying would be reported within six months or not be reported at all) and it would also deter "abandonware" mods, where a mod is made and then never maintained in future updates. Since this would reduce the amount of risk and upfront work on the part of the distributor (such as Steam), it could also potentially result in higher cuts for the creators.

Essentially, if a modder can create something that stands the test of time, they'd get their full cut on all sales of the mod once the six month mark hits. If, during that time, they are reported for copying other work or they get complaints about official updates breaking mods and no action is ever taken, they wouldn't see any of their cut. If they do, they'd get all of their "backpay" cut, as well as their cut from any ongoing sales in the future.

Of course, paid mods in general typically encourage partitioning out options into different mods. For instance, there wouldn't be a Game of Thrones mod for CK2, there would be a base one, then there would be the Essos expansion, then the new narrative situations, then different options/flavor, etc., all sold separately, instead of being bundled under one mod that was free. But as money comes in for modders, we also would likely see an increase in high quality free work to help promote paid mods (for instance, in the above example, it would make sense for a modder/group of modders to have the GoT mod be free, then sell the "extra" mods to generate revenue) to generate interest, advertise skill and promote their product.

 

I know this is an example, but how do you presume would modders avoid legal action against their monetization based on the copyrighted work by Martin and/or HBO?

[Swaggerjking]

One of the big things I think is a big problem is people pirating mods whether on that site or on a different site
I think they will try selling them again I think modders should get a higher cut but I do not play with the mods enough or the game enough to where I want to put more money in while a lot of the mods don't make that much of a difference Ok I didn't see. Jimmy post but a back pay or delay would be pretty good but still doesn't completely get rid of the pirating problem because it isn't to big of a problem with free mod other than stealing credit but once your taking money now it becomes a bigger problem

[Fast Jimmy]

I know this is an example, but how do you presume would modders avoid legal action against their monetization based on the copyrighted work by Martin and/or HBO?

I'm not a copyright expert, so I'll freely admit I don't know. I would assume that part of the cut the distributor takes would include at least some legal support for the content they have been paid for as well (since, with Valve taking money from the sale of the product, they would be named in such a suit as well).

But there are lots of websites out there that earn ad revenue or other income from doing things like fanfiction or fan tributes. I mean, deviant art can attribute much of its success to fan made art dedicated to copyright they don't own. How can that site, which receives millions of hits a day and more ad revenue in a month than any mod would likely make in its lifetime, not have legal headaches more than a monetized mod would?

[Fast Jimmy]

One of the big things I think is a big problem is people pirating mods whether on that site or on a different site
I think they will try selling them again I think modders should get a higher cut but I do not play with the mods enough or the game enough to where I want to put more money in while a lot of the mods don't make that much of a difference

Which is why someone like Steam needs to be the one doing it. The mod would register like a purchased game or DLC. While this can be pirated, it is not as easy as going to The Nexus and downloading a mod that the actual modder would have charged for on a different site. The DRM nature of Steam protects the modders interests.

[Swaggerjking]

Does anyone know if fallout 4 is strictly steam's like Skyrim

[In Exile]

Higher quality expectations eventually turn to higher quality products. It's a bumpy road starting out, but that's the way of things.

I honestly think a three or six month delay from when the mod is posted to any payment of the modder might not be a bad idea. It prevents a lot of the "copyright" worries of people ripping off existing mods (such copying would be reported within six months or not be reported at all) and it would also deter "abandonware" mods, where a mod is made and then never maintained in future updates. Since this would reduce the amount of risk and upfront work on the part of the distributor (such as Steam), it could also potentially result in higher cuts for the creators.

Essentially, if a modder can create something that stands the test of time, they'd get their full cut on all sales of the mod once the six month mark hits. If, during that time, they are reported for copying other work or they get complaints about official updates breaking mods and no action is ever taken, they wouldn't see any of their cut. If they do, they'd get all of their "backpay" cut, as well as their cut from any ongoing sales in the future.

Of course, paid mods in general typically encourage partitioning out options into different mods. For instance, there wouldn't be a Game of Thrones mod for CK2, there would be a base one, then there would be the Essos expansion, then the new narrative situations, then different options/flavor, etc., all sold separately, instead of being bundled under one mod that was free. But as money comes in for modders, we also would likely see an increase in high quality free work to help promote paid mods (for instance, in the above example, it would make sense for a modder/group of modders to have the GoT mod be free, then sell the "extra" mods to generate revenue) to generate interest, advertise skill and promote their product.

That has incentive issues. What's to stop people from not paying out in six months? They have to give their credit card # immediately, and get charged later? How can they cancel it if they're unhappy because, e.g., the modder didn't do what was required? If the aim is to create an independent revenue stream that gives us something more than amateur modders - which we already have now - how would a six-month moratorium on pay help the process? 

 

None of it addresses QA for mods, including compatibility issues between mods. Who will handle it? How long will it take? If mods are incompatible, will there be some form of redress?

 

In general, I think you're too optimistic. My view is that once the possibility for profit is introduced, absent regulation, we'll see everyone diving towards the techniques that have the best yield on effort-to-profit, which is not a winning proposition for consumers. 

[Fast Jimmy]

That has incentive issues. What's to stop people from not paying out in six months? They have to give their credit card # immediately, and get charged later? How can they cancel it if they're unhappy because, e.g., the modder didn't do what was required?

The gamer is charged at point of sale. Steam is the one holding onto payment for the six months. There would be no rush by gamers to get refunds at the six month mark. Sorry for the confusion.

If the aim is to create an independent revenue stream that gives us something more than amateur modders - which we already have now - how would a six-month moratorium on pay help the process?

It ensures quality, attention and longevity, all key factors in the best mods. Coupled with Steam's refund policy, a mod that breaks the core game wouldn't result in a dime for the modder. A mod that engages it's consumers, takes feedback, makes improvements and keeps pace with official updates would be rewarded. That's incenivizng the best modder behavior.

None of it addresses QA for mods, including compatibility issues between mods. Who will handle it? How long will it take? If mods are incompatible, will there be some form of redress?

Ideally, Steam would provide refunds to consumers for mods that get consistent complaints and no sign of addressing the issues at hand. If Steam gives refunds, there's no money for the modder to get a cut off.

In general, I think you're too optimistic. My view is that once the possibility for profit is introduced, absent regulation, we'll see everyone diving towards the techniques that have the best yield on effort-to-profit, which is not a winning proposition for consumers.

If you delay the reward until time for quality issues to make themselves apparent, the market will impose its own regulation.

It's not ideal. But I'll drag this clan to paid modding glory... whether it likes it or not.

[In Exile]

The gamer is charged at point of sale. Steam is the one holding onto payment for the six months. There would be no rush by gamers to get refunds at the six month mark. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Fair. What's the incentive for the modder, then? You're producing content without pay for 6 months, with the possibility of never seen a return on your investment if the user's post-release attitude toward your content is negative. Will there be some way for steam to act like a referee - shifting the chaff excuses not to pay (I don't like the mod!) from fair ones (the mod breaks this other mod!)? 

 

It ensures quality, attention and longevity, all key factors in the best mods. Coupled with Steam's refund policy, a mod that breaks the core game wouldn't result in a dime for the modder. A mod that engages it's consumers, takes feedback, makes improvements and keeps pace with official updates would be rewarded. That's incenivizng the best modder behavior. 

 

It isn't that simple. What about a mod that breaks another mod? That's what I'm thinking here. I spend IRL money to buy two mods. They are incompatible. I bought them to enjoy them toghether. Will there be no guarantee in this case? The issue here can be exponential - there may well the thousands of mods, and any single mod creator can't be expected to constantly do QA to stability test his/her mod with every other one and every other combination. 

 

Then, why is it incumbent on the modder to actually update/revise the program? I understand that software patches are now a common part of the industry, but it seems (from the POV of a modder) that content update is the equivalent of DLC, not patching (to use the gaming model). Why couldn't I, for example, monetize that part? Why would I be treating new content/improvements as, effectively, stability patches?

 

Ideally, Steam would provide refunds to consumers for mods that get consistent complaints and no sign of addressing the issues at hand. If Steam gives refunds, there's no money for the modder to get a cut off.

 

But there are misaligned incentives, and a possibility for everyone to end up dissapointed. Because in this case we've asked Steam to effectively work as a consumer protection bureau. But it's not really a regulator, and it wants mods to make money (because it gets a cut only if the payment is kept).

 

If you delay the reward until time for quality issues to make themselves apparent, the market will impose its own regulation.

 

I don't think the issue is just a regulatory one. I don't see how it can be effectively regulated, at least in the state that's being proposed, and be economically viable at the same time. To put it differently, regulation often means an end to certain types of business practices.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fair. What's the incentive for the modder, then? You're producing content without pay for 6 months, with the possibility of never seen a return on your investment if the user's post-release attitude toward your content is negative. Will there be some way for steam to act like a referee - shifting the chaff excuses not to pay (I don't like the mod!) from fair ones (the mod breaks this other mod!)? 

 

Sure... Steam will act in its own self-interest of keeping its money and not generating a refund unless the complaint is valid. They have just as much (if not more, depending on the reimbursement model) skin in the discussion as the modder. They won't want to give a refund if the mod "isn't as cool as I thought it would be."

 

 

 

It isn't that simple. What about a mod that breaks another mod? That's what I'm thinking here. I spend IRL money to buy two mods. They are incompatible. I bought them to enjoy them toghether. Will there be no guarantee in this case? The issue here can be exponential - there may well the thousands of mods, and any single mod creator can't be expected to constantly do QA to stability test his/her mod with every other one and every other combination.

I consider that not a valid reason to refund. Yes, it sucks. But Steam/the developer should have an interface that let's you select which mods you are enacting (just like many mod-friendly games do) and if mods conflict, the player would be able to turn off any conflicting ones. They still get the same exact experience and content as advertised, just not with additional content a fellow third-party vendor is supplying. There has to be some consumer culpability here.

 

That being said, I think I could also see a "union" of sorts forming with certain modders, where they might band together and make sure their mods all work with each other - a seal of approval that would be beneficial to each other's products. Again, the market would correct itself on these things.

 

Then, why is it incumbent on the modder to actually update/revise the program? I understand that software patches are now a common part of the industry, but it seems (from the POV of a modder) that content update is the equivalent of DLC, not patching (to use the gaming model). Why couldn't I, for example, monetize that part? Why would I be treating new content/improvements as, effectively, stability patches?

 

A modder could try. Nothing would prevent them. Their career would, likely, not last long if they did. 

 

You're looking at this through the current industry lens - modders being talented fans of a single game who want to make something. But look on the macro scale - modders who excel at Bethesda game mods band together and form a company that produces top quality mods that are both highly enjoyed as well as well polished and they are rewarded accordingly for it, making not only a name for themselves, but a standard in the industry. This type of consumer-friendly practices would be embraced by the most successful, while those out swindle people will be viewed as sketchy lone wolves. We may be looking at a future where someone would be no more likely to buy a mod from a random modder they have never heard of as they are to pay for a video game from a random dude who has no credibility or support.

 

But there are misaligned incentives, and a possibility for everyone to end up dissapointed. Because in this case we've asked Steam to effectively work as a consumer protection bureau. But it's not really a regulator, and it wants mods to make money (because it gets a cut only if the payment is kept).

 

 

I don't think the issue is just a regulatory one. I don't see how it can be effectively regulated, at least in the state that's being proposed, and be economically viable at the same time. To put it differently, regulation often means an end to certain types of business practices.

 

Steam doesn't have to act as a regulator. They just have to issue refunds if a consumer asks for it (a policy they currently have, albeit in its infancy) and they have to determine if a mod is being supported six months after release. While there will be some cases that require more investigation than others, it can be easily seen if a mod has been supported, updated and well-received. A simple, small mod with less than five hundred downloads may need very few updates - in which case, if it works and there are no major complaints, the modder may get $100. A large, widely popular mod may have tens of thousands of downloads and may be in the process of doing new updates or fixing existing bugs caused by the recent update. This, too, would allow payment, as it shows the modder(s) are involved and engaged. Another mod is posted and, within weeks, numerous complaints and emails are sent, asking for refund requests, complaints of copying/piracy of an existing mod and/or no updates past the first week it was uploaded let's Steam pocket any money paid with no reward for the delinquent modder.

 

Appeals can be completed by both the modder and the consumer through a fairly standard process, but overall, it is better than a lot of the "Wild West" model that Steam rolled out with TES.

[Cyonan]

As far as mods breaking go, the main issues are:

 

1. Mods have conflicts with each other that cause issues

2. Fallout 4 issues a patch that breaks mods

 

The first one is pretty easy to deal with, just offer a refund period of a few days after buying a mod. No questions asked, just get a refund if you want for whatever reason. Not doing this would be monumentally stupid on Valve/Bethesda's part, and Valve is finally starting to come around on offering refunds in general on Steam(sadly, EA is somehow ahead of them on this).

 

Now, the patch one is another beast entirely because there is no way for the market to enforce good rules on that. If an official patch beaks something, then you are at the mercy of the mod developer to fix it and if they don't then you're screwed. We can try to keep track of which mods have conflicts with each other, you can't possibly tell what a future patch is going to break.