Valve charges 75% on mods

Well gamers are the ones paying for the mods and you can see how they feel about this in news article comments and various forums. Supporting the game developer is not the problem and I don't think anyone has been against for Bethesda getting a cut but now its almost half or over half of the price. Gamers know Bethesda is not really doing anything for the mod, modding support or even the game anymore. They also know that the 25% can mean modder racking up the price to earn at least something. This paid mod thing would have worked better with a new game.

Some gamers have taken app stores, various tools or games selling user content in comparison where the cut is below 50% and base idea is the same. "Creators" use a platform or a game to create content for it and then share and sell it. Most people seemed to forget Valve here with the unknown percentage but even if its 30% it would mean 30% Bethesda and modder fair 40%. With the app store thing there was already jokes about Skyrim 2 modding where people will have to Bethesda a yearly fee of $99 to mod the game

Pointing out a huge list of what they are taking advantage of like they would not have to do the same and saying "still" getting a 25% cut. Maybe for swords and armors that true but complex mods add and need half of the list at least. Total conversion style or DLC type content take time from the modders too as in writing or testing and while they use the core game assets some have more than half of own assets.

 

I actually disagree with this a lot. From what I understand, the Creation Kit was literally Bethesda making their clunky software available to download and saying "here's a little tutorial to get you started. Good luck!"

Yes, you get access to intellectual property, but not for free. It's not like you can release a mod for Skyrim and someone can play it WITHOUT purchasing Skyrim.

Testing: Nope. Skyrim has not been maintained by Bethesda since it was pretty much called "good enough" (A significant amount of patching has been done by modders)

Tools: When you launch the Creation Kit, about 15 errors pop up on launch. There is little to no documentation about how to properly use the tool. It's NOT obvious how to do anything. Most of the proper tutorials and documentation has been made by the community for free.

Marketing & Distribution: Basically everyone knows Skyrim was "one of those games" in the history of gaming, mostly in regard to immersion. However, the efforts of the mod community is what you hear about now. They did all of this work for free, made websites about working on the game for free. Steam (not Bethesda) made all of this work to support hosting and delivery of mods (not bethesda) for free.

I'm not saying Bethesda shouldn't get a cut, but the amount of work modders have done for Skyrim is so great in quantity that it's sad to see them take aprox 75% of profits. They have done almost NOTHING to add support for the game/modding community.

I hope people start making money via a donation system on the Nexus site and not through the Workshop. This is a total slap in the face to all the fans that have devoted so much time to Skyrim.

 

It's worth pointing out that a lot of the complaints surrounding this initiative are focused on just the initial application, which is limited to one game and one company.

It is important not to throw the baby out with the bath. The first attempt to implement this strategy is likely to be rocky. But what about what comes after?

One potential benefit that I see is the incentive that it provides to commercial companies. The modding scene has suffered over the past decade due to publishers wanting to "lock-down" their games, and control everything going into or coming out of their titles. The "Hot-Coffee" fiasco was part of the push away from modding. Game companies saw what kind of public PR backlash could occur due to modding, and became considerably more cautious.

There has still been modding, of course. But we started to see considerably less official support for the practice. Certain companies like Id, Valve, and Epic continued to support those communities, but most others turned their backs on the modding scene.

A system like the one that Valve is putting into place could help greatly to revitalize modding. Not just from the side of the modders, but from developers and publishers as well. DLC produced after a game has been released is one of the better ways for a company to glean additional recurring revenue from a title. Community-generated content costs the company very little, and can result in additional profits. A system like the one being experimented with on Steam provides a direct financial incentive for game companies to support modding, and design their games with modding in mind.

In the next few years we will likely see a lot of PC developers start to target the modding community with better tools and more robust official documentation and support.

 

Most of that was Rockstar's own fault though. The mini-game exposed by the mod was actually shipped with the game.

Or more of them may simply switch to Unreal and Unity. It is trivial to add modding support to your games with them.

 

"Making a living" modding at these rates means "making a living" for Bethesda twice over and once over for Valve.

Let's use an analogy. Imagine that I am a car painter. I usually work for free using paint I provide and a facility that was provided to me by a company called Valve and I only happen to paint the model of car called a Skyrim, manufactured by Bethesda.

Now, it used to be the case that you would bring your Skryrim into me and I'd paint it beautifully and at the end of the day it wouldn't cost you a dime because the cost of the facilities was paid for by the cost of your car, and I cover the paint. But one day Valve, out of the kindness of their hearts, decided that it might be a good idea if I would get paid.

So again, you come along and you go to get a paint job, thinking "Well, I don't really expect this guy to work for free anyway." I finish up the job and your bill looks like this;

$2,500 labor/materials
$3,000 facility rent
$4,500 car manufacturer

Total; $10,000.00 for a $2,500.00 paint job.

"Isn't this rent a bit high, and what in the bald faced f**k is the car manufacturer doing on this bill, I already bought my car!"

"Well," I say, "Two and a half grand is about normal for a good paint job, my landlord calculates my rent by doubling whatever the cost of material and labor, and I guess I don't really have a great explanation for the car manufacturer. They argue that since my paint job couldn't exist without their car, they're owed just about as much as my labor, the material costs, and the rent put together."

"That's one of the craziest things I've ever heard.", you say.

"Yep.", I respond.

 

Yes, I think making a living from modding is likely unrealistic. It may not be a bad way to justify your hobby though.

 

I don't know, but it's certainly justified for Bethesda and Valve.

 

This is actually how it works if you want to put a sign out the front saying "XXX car manufacturer approved painter". Or "Approved XXX dealer". There is a fee that goes back to the car manufacturer.

 

Heh, this is largely my job description.

 

Steam has reverted the change.

http://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218

 

I agree with the comments on that page. They should simply add a donate button. At the very least it could go toward the modder's wish list.

 

The PC modding community does not take S*** even from the biggest companies trying a cash grab. Valve better remember this.

 

Wasn't there always the option to just not charge for your mod, or not buy paid mods though?

 

This isn't the problem. Modding communities are built on collaboration and equality which falls apart if potential money is at stake. It simply cannot function this way.

A donation based system however, like on the nexus, has worked since a long time. There is no reason to try to change a self sustained and functional system.

 

What happens if you try to sell a mod that depends on other mods for some of their functionality? The SKSE (Skyrim Script Extender) is an example of a mod that is required by others such as SkyUI. Its authors already stated they didn't care one way or another, but if had cared would they have been able to restrict it?

 

Both of these arguments are a bit like saying that open source software can't successfully exist alongside proprietary software. Which we know to be untrue.

 

I'm curious if there is the possibility for mods to have licenses prohibiting their use with non-free mods. I haven't actually read into the process of building mods that work off of functionality from others to know if it can be done or not. Thus the questions rather than actual statements.

Is it actually identical to open source libraries being used by closed source programs? Do they even function similarly to a closed source program accessing an open source library? Are they even allowed to specify something like this due to it being a mod?

Part of me wonders how much Steam actually thought this through, but I can't imagine they didn't at least run it past their legal team.

 

If they are the creator of the content, then they automatically own the copyright to the content. I can't imagine anyone being able to stop them from licensing it however they choose to. The developer of the game may be able to prevent people from charging for mods, because they are the creator of the tools used to create them. But other than that, there's no reason why a mod creator couldn't say "Hey guys, you can play with this all you want, but don't charge money for it."

 

@evan140 and @Ostwind, rather than continuing to back-and-forthing about the matter I'll instead suggest, if you're really interested, doing a business plan and budget for a given game project as a mod vs. as a standalone product.

Eg: if you made a cool model of a sword how much would it cost, where would your time go, and what might an expected return be as mod content. vs as just a model? And same again for a mini-game, total conversion, or other larger scale project. How do hard numbers look?

 

Yes, there are some mods like this. They work just like every other open source software with commercial use forbidden.

However these are usually framework mods that provide a base for others and depend only on the game itself.

 

Except for the last bit, which is kind of critical.

 

I love that they're willing to try new things and openly admit when they don't work out. Seriously awesome. I wish more businesses had the confidence to do this.

 

I agree, its a sign of a strong person when they can see that they have made a poor decision, admit it and move along. I think its the same way with businesses. When you're innovating new ideas, not every one will be a winner.

 

The back down is interesting. I always get disappointed when policies are changed based on current popular opinion, media hype, and public outrage, without the opportunity to actually test the policy and its implications first. Given a couple of months and the public opinion would have become far more moderate as people saw the actual effects of the system.

I really hope someone releases a game soon with paid mods or third party DLC as a designed feature and part of the monetisation strategy from the start.

 

*facepalm*

 

Does Second Life qualify?

 

The ridiculous* backlash is a very real implication, though, and it will impact the outcome. I agree with the Valve announcement that an established modding community perhaps isn't the best place to start this kind of thing. Established culture is exceptionally hard to change, and overt external forces are almost always met with extreme resistance.

* To be clear I don't consider any of the responses here to be ridiculous. Some of the comments I skimmed on the Steam forums, however, are a very different story.

 

Probably. My comment was somewhat facetious in that I have no involvement in any mod community, and have not used or paid much attention to DLC. Its entirely possible and likely that this business model is already out there and thriving. I just haven't paid much attention to the idea until this thread.

 

I don't see this as being relevant to my complaints. My complaints are basically "I'm not going to give Bethesda 75% on a product they aren't actually supporting anymore."

If Bethesda was patching the Creation Kit, Skyrim all along, as well as making tutorials, my reaction would have been completely different. As of right now, you may aswell call the 75% a donation button to Bethesda Software.

 

Second Life is the only one I am aware of that exists. My exposure to mods is limited though primarily to Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Kerbal Space Program, and Minecraft. None of them have any form of paid mods.

 

Because paid mods don't work.

 

Well that's a bummer. I didn't want them to axe it! At least it was something. I think this idea that no one should make money off of iterative work without approval -when it comes to games- is way past it's expiration date.

I would love to see an internet where people put work into modding games, served, and sold those mods, no questions asked.

Why isn't Oracle banging on the door of Mojang, demanding their cut? Why isn't Windows demanding a cut from Bethesda? Bethesda is making money off of the backs of the hard working Microsoft programmers and they don't get a dime of it!

Because Microsoft and Oracle understand when you make something that uses their products they benefit directly from it even when they don't get a cut. They don't lose anything when someone uses their products to make something new.

Why is it the games industry is so far behind on this? Why is there this weird entitlement mentality among game programmers? Hell, why is there any "Intellectual Property" at all??
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/06/pfs-speech-ideas-are-free/

*SIGH* One step forward, two steps back.

 

So all the work they did in the first place is irrelevant now? What if this exact same thing had been added back when the game was new and actively supported, would your reaction be the same?

 

You've got some pretty weird assumptions there. Microsoft is making money. People are buying professional development suites. You know, like the coding equivalent to Adobe Photoshop, etc.

 

Yep, plus other people are buying Windows so they can get access to the software being written by the 3rd party developers. Microsoft are indeed getting their cut, they're just getting it via different avenues.

 

If they announced to ability to sell mods when the Creation Kit was first released, I would have supported it. If the cut was high, I would have probably not liked it but still supported it. I also would assume that this feature would go back into the software and experience of Skyrim as a whole.

Meaning, they would have made the load game mechanic better. They would have made it so you could launch Skyrim with XYZ mod loadout, and then go with an ABC mod loadout easily.

They haven't done any of that. They've barely done anything since the creation kit was released. Thus, I do not support the 75% cut to fund the company when most of the work has been created by volunteers and hobbyists. I would have supported the system as it just was, if it reversed or close to being reversed. As in 25% cut for Bethesda and Valve.

I'm not going to start paying a company when they've done almost nothing for what, 2 years now?

 

But is that because the idea of paid mods is flawed, or is that because the capacity for paid mods was never designed in to the game.

I'm thinking a model where users get the base game for next to nothing, then pay for various mods.

 

The idea that modding should have any monetary reward comparable with a game or job is flawed.

Imagine if you were just starting out as a new rookie modder and ask a technical question on the forum. It might even be a stupid question, but that's irrelevant. You get zero answers as everyone is scared sharing their modding practices and losing potential money. Two days later you find your idea on the workshop, implemented by a knowledgable modder who you thought might answer your question, with a price tag attached.

 

How do you see modding communities being different to game dev communities, and why do you think things will be different there as a result? I mean, why do you think that's a concern for modders and not for game development communities like this one?

 

Because our history on the Unity forums has yet to reveal either of those two phenomena. Look around you.

• There are no experienced users hanging out here to steal noob ideas.
• Plenty of help is given to the community, even if it is very broadly speaking in competition.

 

I know nothing about the mod community, but in reading this thread it seems very fragile to me. Being expected to function as the open source community does and exist alongside paid works would destroy them. Being able to function as the game developer community does and exist among potential competition would destroy them. Will anything not destroy them?

 

What I find deeply ironic is that the Unity Asset Store is essentially identical to what Valve was attempting to achieve with this new initiative. Just call it something different and no one raises an objection. Put it in the context of a game, and somehow it is sacrosanct, and should no longer be considered.

Work on assets for the Unity Asset Store is effectively identical to a LOT of the work done on mods. Content creation, tool creation, engine tweaks, and even level design. It's all there. And Unity has been selling other people's content and taking their cut for quite some time now.

Is it just the difference in profit share that has so many people up in arms?

 

An unevolving market?

It is for me.

 

Well that's because Asset Store if for developers and pricing products seems to be reasonable for everyone.

But mods has always been FREE for everyone. And if something FREE becomes PAID people won't like that unless there are any reasons for that.
Modders receive only 25% and most money go to Valve and Bethesda, which doesn't sound fair for them as well.

 

Yes, I would rather see a donate button appear on the Nexus so I can throw funds at the authors and they can see the full amount sans any PayPal fees.

 

The nexus has had a donate button for ages. I've been modding on that site since well before it existed, and there's one thing I can definitively say.
People do not donate.
I even had a conversation once with a bunch of fellow modders, including people with mods listed in the top 100 of the site. And the end consensus was that, between all of us combined, the number of people who donated could be counted on one hand.
Even the number of people willing to take five seconds to hit the Endorse button averages only around 5-10% on TOP MODS.

 

I didn't read through the entire thread just now so maybe I'm reiterating some things:

Valve didn't state that they will never make paid mods again. Just that they will reeavluate the model and probably test it on a different product without an established community.
In a way the DOTA2 products are similar already but not as flexible because Valve has the last say in what gets included and what not after the community has voted already.

Personally I think it's a good thing to have mods as paid products available but I agree on two core ideas:
1. Going into an established community with established expectations is bad. Especially if it means that mods you could download for free a few weeks ago suddenly cost money - or what about installed mods?
2. If Valve really wanted to give people the opportunity to make a living off of it and work fulltime on mods then 25% isn't enough. Even if Steam has a very high turnover in their products.
I also agree that a donate button - which states the price share to the donor - might be a very nice alternative or could even go side by side to free and paid content.

 

I'm a little annoyed with people turning what I'm saying into straw men. Just because I'm against Intellectual Property does not mean I think all software should be free and no one should be remunerated for their efforts.
Of course Microsoft makes money indirectly, of course Oracle makes money indirectly, and of course people buy some development software. How does that have anything at all to do with the points I made?

I own my computer and everything I download onto it. Everything I serve from my computer is also my property. If I want to try to charge for whatever I serve to you from my equipment then I have the freedom to do that, and you have the freedom to buy or not buy. That is the natural state of affairs and borders on the comically obvious in every other sphere of life.

If I am standing on a street serving you hot dogs, the chain of possession that supplies my vending is of no concern to you as long as nowhere along the chain was anything stolen. I can even modify the hot dog in any way I choose. I could put condiments on it. I could grind it into a slushy. I could do whatever. It's my damned hot-dog. Then I could try to sell it to you, and you would be free to choose to buy.

"Intellectual Property" is no different. I am not creating any kind of special rules or exceptions. I am not applying any kind of new magical rights or pseudo-logic. As long as I am not taking the software off of someone's server without their consent, I should be free to modify it in any way I like and then to resell it for whatever price the market will bear.

I should not be forever the slave of some jerk with a piece of paper hundreds of miles away; Being forever cautious my fingers don't stray over a similar arrangement of keys on my keyboard, or my pen doesn't twist to form a combination similar to a document I'd never read.

Nonsense and tomfoolery! It is the burden of the "Intellectual Property" defender to prove why certain information should conflict with Property Rights, it is not my burden to prove that they shouldn't. Even if you can succeed in that, and you wouldn't, it is the position of all Anarcho-Captitalists that anything that conflicts with Property Rights is immoral anyway.

TLDR; Learn moar. Selling any modification of one's property is the natural right of anyone.
I was first arguing that the modder's compensation was not appropriate, then I was arguing that game programmers have an entitlement mentality that largely doesn't exist among other programming professions, and finally I was arguing that this whole thing is stupid anyway and should be done away with. (My argument has not nor will it ever be that people shouldn't make money off of their software, despite the straw men prior to this post and those to follow.)

Mises.org
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property
https://mises.org/library/intellectual-property-and-libertarianism
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Against Intellectual Property_2.pdf

 

Let's look at donations another way.
Out of nearly 70,000 total unique downloads, over the course of a few years, I've personally never received a single donation.
Let's assume this was just bad luck, and statistically I could just as easily have received one donation. This is being very generous, but for this to work there needs to have been at least one.
Now let's say that after this whole fiasco, with people being more aware of donations and the nexus supposedly planning to make the option of donating more prominent, that donations overall would be 100x more common. This is, again, being generous.
Now let's dial it up further, and say that people had always been this likely to donate from the very beginning.
Let's also say that the average donation is about $2 which is fair based on what I've been told. Some are more some are less.
Over the span of those few years, I would have received a grand total of $200 in donations.
With all that in mind, the amount anyone could possibly receive from donations, even in extreme cases, is nowhere near enough to justify the time and effort that goes into modding.

 

And when I buy that hot dog from you, you no longer own it. The same is not true of software in this case.