Where are the mods?

[dizzy]

Slitherine, you'd have the community doing your job for you if we could mod the game. We'd be making new units, new scenarios and new everything in between. The game would be relevant going into the future and replay ability would be guaranteed. If you want to lockup DLC, then exclude a type a mod category, like ships, or missions, or whatnot. But this game has expiry issues when you play all your missions. There's nothing left to do. Not worth the money if you cant get new community content.

It's currently on sale for $37 with all dlc, but still not good enough. Add mods.

[GHawkins the Grey]

The publisher/developers have a licensing deal with NBC Universal, to be allowed to use the Battlestar Galactica IP for the game.

As part of this deal, the publisher/developer are not allowed to encourage or allow the modding of the game, as it would be modding NBC Universal's property, who do not consent.

Not taking action upon this would violate their agreement with NBC Universal which, in a worst case scenario, could result in them losing the ability to work on the game in any way.

[Supreme Doge]

The game likely won't receive mod support, as stated above. That being said, the game's lifespan could be extended with a proper level/mission editor.

[dizzy]

Yeah, there's little replay value here without a mission editor or campaign tool. I'd like an in game difficulty tweak bar to adjust things like the speed, firepower, toughness, etc. of all units so I can better tailor my gameplay to the type of difficulty I want. This would go a long way toward solving the not mod problem.

[cloning_souls]

a battlestar 1970s themed mod would be amazing

[Sabaithal]

Originally posted by GHawkins the Grey:

The publisher/developers have a licensing deal with NBC Universal, to be allowed to use the Battlestar Galactica IP for the game.

As part of this deal, the publisher/developer are not allowed to encourage or allow the modding of the game, as it would be modding NBC Universal's property, who do not consent.

Not taking action upon this would violate their agreement with NBC Universal which, in a worst case scenario, could result in them losing the ability to work on the game in any way.

Well they can't OFFICIALLY support mods, but if someone were to upload some mods to say, nexus or moddb, there's not much anyone could do about it.

[GHawkins the Grey]

Originally posted by Sabaithal:

Originally posted by GHawkins the Grey:

The publisher/developers have a licensing deal with NBC Universal, to be allowed to use the Battlestar Galactica IP for the game.

As part of this deal, the publisher/developer are not allowed to encourage or allow the modding of the game, as it would be modding NBC Universal's property, who do not consent.

Not taking action upon this would violate their agreement with NBC Universal which, in a worst case scenario, could result in them losing the ability to work on the game in any way.

Well they can't OFFICIALLY support mods, but if someone were to upload some mods to say, nexus or moddb, there's not much anyone could do about it.

Sadly, there is. By my understanding (which could be miles off since I am not aware of the actual agreement, I am basing myself off what I observe) if a mod comes to the attention of Slitherine, Black Labs or Universal, they are obligated to contact the hosting service to get it removed.

There was a mod for Stellaris on the Steam workshop which used assets from the game. The mod was removed by Valve until models from Deadlock were removed. It's back up now without Deadlock models. This shows that someone has the obligation to get other things to comply with the license agreement.

Universal is very protective of their IP. They killed several great mods because of it, including Battlestar Galactica Fleet Commander (Homeworld) and Nexus: Battlestar Galactica (Nexus: The Jupiter Incident). Although it appears they eased off a bit, the Stellaris mod shows they will still take action if they deem it appropriate.

[Sabaithal]

Originally posted by GHawkins the Grey:

Originally posted by Sabaithal:

Well they can't OFFICIALLY support mods, but if someone were to upload some mods to say, nexus or moddb, there's not much anyone could do about it.

Sadly, there is. By my understanding (which could be miles off since I am not aware of the actual agreement, I am basing myself off what I observe) if a mod comes to the attention of Slitherine, Black Labs or Universal, they are obligated to contact the hosting service to get it removed.

There was a mod for Stellaris on the Steam workshop which used assets from the game. The mod was removed by Valve until models from Deadlock were removed. It's back up now without Deadlock models. This shows that someone has the obligation to get other things to comply with the license agreement.

Universal is very protective of their IP. They killed several great mods because of it, including Battlestar Galactica Fleet Commander (Homeworld) and Nexus: Battlestar Galactica (Nexus: The Jupiter Incident). Although it appears they eased off a bit, the Stellaris mod shows they will still take action if they deem it appropriate.

Oh thats just perfect. Killing off fan-based content created out of love for both the game and whatever medium (TV show in this case) just because there is a chance that the not-corporate-scumbag-people might actually do a better job than they do and make them look bad. Also money. This doesn't really even surprise me at this point, just disgusts me.

[GHawkins the Grey]

Originally posted by Sabaithal:

Oh thats just perfect. Killing off fan-based content created out of love for both the game and whatever medium (TV show in this case) just because there is a chance that the not-corporate-scumbag-people might actually do a better job than they do and make them look bad. Also money. This doesn't really even surprise me at this point, just disgusts me.

We have had many discussions on the Discord on the subject.

You can put the blame on the US copyright laws. Because of this, if the owner of the IP does not take action against small time modders or otherwise unlicensed users, they can not defend their IP in court against a major rival. That's because the rival will say that the owner never took action against prior usage of the IP without a license and that the IP holder is selectively allowing people to not use a license, which is apparently under that same law illegal.

I almost know for a fact that Slitherine and Black Labs would encourage modding if it was allowed. Universal, as a big company, I have my doubts about. But they are left no choice regardless.

[Drages]

Universal makes the same for Jurassic World.. that game needs mods much more then this game to became something worth.. but sadly Universal limits game devs and modders so badly.

[Proxy_J]

What about fair use?

[GHawkins the Grey]

Originally posted by Proxy_J:

What about fair use?

Little bit of a necro there.

That being said, the modding of this game isn't prevented by copyright laws, we just speculate it's done on copyright grounds. However, the actual method of which modding is forbidden is through the EULA, End User License Agreement, the piece of legal document nobody ever reads but everyone has to agree to.

It specifically states:
3.4. LICENSEE may not lend, distribute, lease, sell, transmit, transfer, publish, edit, copy, create derivative works, rent, sub-license, decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise make any unauthorized use of the PRODUCT, PROPERTY or content, in whole or in part and shall not incorporate any portion of PRODUCT, or any part of the resulting software into an alternative Product(s), in any form, whether modified, or unmodified, without the express written permission of PUBLISHER;

By installing the game, you agree to the contents of the EULA. If you do not agree with the EULA, you should technically uninstall the game and not use it at all. Normally, the EULA is just a standard legal document that nobody really enforces unless someone lawyers up for whatever reason.

However, in this case, a policy of the IP holder is incorporated in the EULA and it appears the IP holder requires active enforcement of the EULA. And the EULA is a technically a form of contract you sign. Thus you can be made to abide by it. And the EULA thus falls under contract law, not copyright law.

This means going against the EULA, by for example modding the game, can never be fair use as that's a concept under copyright law and appears to not exist under contract law. The bottom line is, you "signed" a contract stating you wouldn't mod the game, you modded the game, so stop doing it and abide by the EULA, or action can be taken against you.

If you create your own Adamant model from scratch using only images as reference and toss that into another game, you can make a claim to fair use. The problem with that is, that in the past NBCU has been willing to lawyer up against these cases that constitute fair use. And if my hobby is to make models for game mods and I am suddenly faced with a corporation with a battalion of lawyers, I think I'll go make something else instead of fighting a legal battle I might win, at the expense of large amounts of time, effort and money.

And thus NBCU wins both on the contract law front, while scaring anyone away on the copyright front. They get what they want in the end.

[Proxy_J]

So they're ♥♥♥♥♥. Got it

[kucsidaveee]

Originally posted by GHawkins the Grey:

Little bit of a necro there.

That being said, the modding of this game isn't prevented by copyright laws, we just speculate it's done on copyright grounds. However, the actual method of which modding is forbidden is through the EULA, End User License Agreement, the piece of legal document nobody ever reads but everyone has to agree to.

It specifically states:
3.4. LICENSEE may not lend, distribute, lease, sell, transmit, transfer, publish, edit, copy, create derivative works, rent, sub-license, decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise make any unauthorized use of the PRODUCT, PROPERTY or content, in whole or in part and shall not incorporate any portion of PRODUCT, or any part of the resulting software into an alternative Product(s), in any form, whether modified, or unmodified, without the express written permission of PUBLISHER;

By installing the game, you agree to the contents of the EULA. If you do not agree with the EULA, you should technically uninstall the game and not use it at all. Normally, the EULA is just a standard legal document that nobody really enforces unless someone lawyers up for whatever reason.

However, in this case, a policy of the IP holder is incorporated in the EULA and it appears the IP holder requires active enforcement of the EULA. And the EULA is a technically a form of contract you sign. Thus you can be made to abide by it. And the EULA thus falls under contract law, not copyright law.

This means going against the EULA, by for example modding the game, can never be fair use as that's a concept under copyright law and appears to not exist under contract law. The bottom line is, you "signed" a contract stating you wouldn't mod the game, you modded the game, so stop doing it and abide by the EULA, or action can be taken against you.

If you create your own Adamant model from scratch using only images as reference and toss that into another game, you can make a claim to fair use. The problem with that is, that in the past NBCU has been willing to lawyer up against these cases that constitute fair use. And if my hobby is to make models for game mods and I am suddenly faced with a corporation with a battalion of lawyers, I think I'll go make something else instead of fighting a legal battle I might win, at the expense of large amounts of time, effort and money.

And thus NBCU wins both on the contract law front, while scaring anyone away on the copyright front. They get what they want in the end.

This is a beautifully formed statement.
Sice modding comes up pretty much monthly, can I reference this post in the future?

[Masque of the Red Death]

Originally posted by GHawkins the Grey:

Originally posted by Proxy_J:

What about fair use?

However, the actual method of which modding is forbidden is through the EULA, End User License Agreement, the piece of legal document nobody ever reads but everyone has to agree to.

It specifically states:
3.4. LICENSEE may not lend, distribute, lease, sell, transmit, transfer, publish, edit, copy, create derivative works, rent, sub-license, decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise make any unauthorized use of the PRODUCT, PROPERTY or content, in whole or in part and shall not incorporate any portion of PRODUCT, or any part of the resulting software into an alternative Product(s), in any form, whether modified, or unmodified, without the express written permission of PUBLISHER;

Actually, that's not the issue. That's boilerplate language that is present in substantively similar form in pretty much every software EULA. The real problem is in Section 8.2, to wit:

8.2. Whether or not an Editor has been supplied by PUBLISHER, users are not permitted to use, or allow third parties to use, such Editor and or any materials created for any commercial purposes whatsoever, without the express written permission of PUBLISHER. Any person so doing is committing an offence and or a copyright violation and may be subject to appropriate civil, or criminal action.

[GHawkins the Grey]

Originally posted by kucsidaveee:

This is a beautifully formed statement.
Sice modding comes up pretty much monthly, can I reference this post in the future?

Feel free.

Originally posted by Masque of the Red Death:

Actually, that's not the issue. That's boilerplate language that is present in substantively similar form in pretty much every software EULA. The real problem is in Section 8.2, to wit:

8.2. Whether or not an Editor has been supplied by PUBLISHER, users are not permitted to use, or allow third parties to use, such Editor and or any materials created for any commercial purposes whatsoever, without the express written permission of PUBLISHER. Any person so doing is committing an offence and or a copyright violation and may be subject to appropriate civil, or criminal action.

Section 8.2 refers to commercial purposes only. Meaning, you can't make money off modding the game unless the publisher allows it. All Slitherine games have section 8.2 in the EULA, even games with workshop support (that have content other than scenarios) such as Armored Brigade, ICBM and even Distant Worlds 2, which literally has a modding Roadmap.

8.2 does not forbid the act of modding, it forbids the act of modding and then requiring or requesting people to pay for the mod. I can make a nation pack for Armored Brigade and put it on the workshop. I can't make a nation pack for Armored Brigade and then charge people 5 euros to get a download link. Then I'd be making money off someone else's work (Armored Brigade) and thus I'd make a copyright violation.

3.4 is also included in the EULA in all these games. The difference is, that for all the other games, the publisher gave permission for modding. But they explicitly forbid modding for BSGD. Thus 3.4 is the bit in the EULA that holds modding back.

Thus, to summarize, 3.4 forbids modding unless permitted. 8.2 forbids making money off modding, unless permitted. Since 3.4 is enforced, modding is forbidden.