So now modders can be paid for their work in Skyrim, and I think we can all agree it's a
little controversial. I've seen a lot of people flinging ♥♥♥♥ and using ad hominem on both sides of the discussion, but it seems like the most common argument I see used against those who don't want modding monetized in this way (or maybe anyway at all, who am I to say?) is that they're either entitled, or angry because they're too poor to pay for them. Neither of those apply to me, and I don't want my opinion to be discounted with a broad generalization. But the practical concerns (compatibility, reliability, pricing, copyright infringement, DRM, etc.) have already been touched on. The ethics haven't. So here's why monetizing mods is bad.
Modding started in earnest with id in the early 90s. Mods had been made earlier, but Wolfenstein and Doom were the first games to really bring modding to the forefront. Other developers had ignored or spurned modding entirely, going so far as to prevent modifications to their products whenever possible and in many cases make it a violation of the EULA. id, namely Carmack, were however strong proponents of the
Hacker Ethic[en.wikipedia.org], and added tools and concessions to their games to making modding not just possible, but practicable. "If the players can make their own levels, they won't buy our sequel(s)" was used against modding, but at a potentially great risk to their bottom line they added a development kit and modding tools to their game. In keeping with the hacker ethic, information could be free, and people had the power to make something amazing with limited experience or expertise. More than two decades on, Doom has what is perhaps the most vibrant modding community in the history of videogames, and people are to this day making amazing things in it.
This idea of freedom and creation for its own sake has been the central tenet of modding ever since, and we've all benefit. I'm firmly of the opinion that without that freedom to explore and create we'll all suffer. Modding has always been considered something of a public service, spending the time and effort to make something great so everyone (you included!) can benefit. I think that's incredible, but what's more incredible is how long the modding community has persisted. And in that time they've creating everything from
tiny game edits to
full conversions that
rival[www.thedarkmod.com] and
even surpass[ja2v113.pbworks.com] the original product.
Some even[www.killingfloorthegame.com] become[blog.counter-strike.net] retail[www.teamfortress.com] games[blog.dota2.com]! That's only a small fraction of what's been made, but it was built on the principle of making something you enjoy, and sharing for others to enjoy and maybe even make better!
But somewhere down the line modding turned from a public service into labour, to work. No longer is the bliss of creating something great and sharing it sufficient.
And here we are. Modding doesn't exist without the freedom to create and share, which is why it
cannot exist behind a paywall. The Workshop's well...
shop is an existential threat to the future of modding. Make no mistake, VALVe has a near monopoly on the world of computer games and if this cash shop becomes the norm I fear that modding as it is may disappear forever. Instead of modders, we'll have unemployed labourers, handling the task of fixing an unfinished or broken game that the dev left behind, paid only a mercenary sum of whatever the publisher thinks they're deserving after the Gabe Tax (they get 25% now before local tax, how much lower can it sink?)
I think modding is the single greatest part of videogames, a veritable secret garden in an otherwise shamelessly commercialized enterprise, and if we allow the Workshop's shop to take root it'll be gone forever. Thank you, and if you agree with me please consider signing this
petition[www.change.org] to show your opposition. If not, I would love to hear your rebuttal!
P.S. I want sure which forum to post this in, so I posted it in both. You can find my other thread
here.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
That is a potential danger isn't it? In that case a very clear one of something that should be dealt with in production, being offset to modders, with producers taking a cut on the side.
Even if its less clear, like rebalances and the like, its all still value-addition to a game. It becomes very murky.
That would be sad day friend,
As i've said elsewhere a steamlined way of providing modders a donation would be great. there have been many times I've wanted to donate to a mod which i've enjoyed ans wanted to see developed but didn't because I'm somewhat wary on certain internet transactions.
I can understand if people want to donate, but don't make me pay to use a mod in general.
They cant make you pay for the for the mods your are already using freely, the most that will happen is that the mod will be taken down, or stop being updated.
I wouldnt personally use the term abhorent as its a bit too strong of an evaluative judgement, but yes I'd like more to go to the modder.
I don't see anything wrong with Valve's share. They take that share on everything else sold, so why should mods get special treatment?
Bethesda is taking almost half the money, which seems to be the problem here. Maybe if they took 40-45% of what's left after Valve, then it might be more acceptable. With those numbers, the author would get 38-42% of the original purchase, which seems a little bit more fair (Bethesda would then be taking 28-32% of the original price).
The ideal solution would be to have a donate option where (after Valve takes their cut) all the money goes to the modder. It would encourage well-made content instead of the greedy money-grabbing crap that is currently flooding the workshop.
But that fact is, if you're selling content for someone else's game, they have every right to take whatever they want. Bethesda is perfectly able to ban mods (although in practice, they could only stop the sharing of them). Donating is a different matter because you're not exchaning the money for content that Bethesda has (some) rights over.
TL;DR: You don't have the right to sell content for someone else's game. If they let you, you do it under their terms. If you don't like their terms, then don't sell the content.
I love the idea, but apparently there maybe legal issues with valve taking a cut of a donation, I'd like some more infor on that from an american perspective as i'm not too familiar with your law.