/svidya/ - Strict /v/

>>15534

>paid mods isn't screwing over the customer

>donation based mod monetisation isn't valuing creation

>>15537

Give them credit anon, they're greedy :^)

>>15534

>implying all value-creation has to be monetary

>>15418

>First, a lot of mods are actually dependent on other mods.

True, but I can't see many future mods being made dependent on paid content unless they absolutely have to be. If they do have to be, it implies that the original mod adds a lot of content to the game and would require much time and effort to reproduce–shouldn't the creator have the ability to charge for a big chunk of gameplay like that?

>Secondly, this incentivises people TO put mods behind a paywall.

People can charge money for things, and some people will. If companies can charge money for DLC, why shouldn't fans be able to? I don't think that everybody will, because most modders are clearly not in it for the money.

>Finally, modding is an effort that should be done on an initiative basis, meaning if you want to drop a mod or no longer work on it, that should be fine so long as you're cool with someone else picking up where you left it. That happens A LOT in the modding community, a pay only not only invites a lot of legal trouble with that but also causes trouble for those who really SHOULD give up the mod to someone else but are holding onto it because of money reasons.

That's a very valid point, and I admit that I hadn't considered it fully. It also touches upon the fact that many mods are ongoing projects relying on community feedback, which is a model more suited to donations or tips than mandatory, one-off payments.

Valve is creating a marketplace that gives stupid consumers the ability to give money to people who don't deserve it. Arguably they've been doing this for a lot longer than a few days. I'm still not entirely convinced that Valve is responsible for the greed of its clients or the poor taste of its users. I can see the flaws and potential future abuses, but I'm bothered by the notion of blaming Valve for giving modders the freedom to do as they please.

>>15467

That's extremely pessimistic and unfounded. If modders were exclusively driven by greed, they'd have put their talents into indie development instead.

>>15558

>money steers work in a community

no, dedication steers work, money incentivises dedication

>>15558

This is sickening. I'm a selfish person but only ever for my own survival, not greed. Money is absolutely not the reason for progress. In many cases, it is the catalyst of regress.

How long until people start calling themselves "AAA Mod Developers"?

>>15552

fascinating gabe really fascinating, everyone getting btfo from Reddit comes here to defend themselves.

also Respect the Robot.

>>15552

People who employ the quote-reply-model seem to have in common that they are unable to distill a general point from the message they are responding to. For example, your second point is moot. The original posters point was not "modders should not be paid for their work", it was "modders should not hide their content behind a paywall".

This is not even touching the "You too!" argument within companies wringing money for DLC, which was and is a subject of contention among the consumerbase. To be more precise: you can not refer to companies asking money for DLC, as (judging by the apparent consensus) many people will not agree with you that asking money for small gameplay enhancements is a good thing. Horse Armour being the most notorious and volatile example.

Again skipping issues, like how you gormlessly avoid the issue of legality concerning using other peoples content in your production, once monetizing it. Or how you ignore the final, but vital, sentence on the original post, while negating your first and second point by agreeing with the original posts last one.

This brings me to your last point: people are not accusing Valve of the greediness of its consumers. People are complaining about Valve for the ridiculous 75% norm and the poor way the system has been setup and lambasting modders for hiding their content behind a paywall. There is a separation (with overlap).

Granted, there is a wide margin of interpretation at play, but I do not have the impression most people commenting on the controversy have an issue with people getting paid for the content they make. Merely how they go about asking for money in the new situation.

If there is a general, abstract issue I would like to address, it is that "Man is complex". So reductive generalizations such as >>15417 do not serve. Some might even say you are being needlessly inflammatory for the sake of getting attention, a.k.a.: shitposting.

>Valve monetizes mods

BREAKING NEWS EVERYONE VALVE JUST RELEASED COUNTERSTRIKE.

this thread is funny :^)

>>15576

oh and don't get me wrong, I don't even like valve.

but complaining that they expand their infrastructure so other companies can help modders make money and make money themselves, like valve have been doing since counterstrike and continues doing with portal, l4d, tf2, cs:go, dota2 (check out the workshop agreements to see how much valve takes compared to bethesdas 75%), is just stupid.

>>15577

>companies can help modders make money and make money themselves

You mean inadvertently forcing free mods to become paid lest their efforts be plagiarized? Undermining a community fueled by mostly passion, goodwill and love for their hobby? Setting an unreasonable precedence for future money-grubbing business practices?

1/10 got me to reply.

>why did no one complain sooner, you know about 15 years ago when counterstrike happened. or 4 or 5 years ago when they introduced buyable items to TF2 where modders could get items in for a share of the profit

this is what I wrote paraphrased, since you didn't comprehend my original post. sry for not being more precise in my wording.

everyone suddenly thinks about what could go wrong in a system that has been in place for 15 years already, it's rather fascinating.

>>15585

Yeah, people are seriously acting as if a total conversion mod that completely changes the whole game is not the same thing as a re-skinned sword or some new fishing animations.

Really strange. It's like they are just pretending to be silly.

>>15586

why only mention cs when I also brought up TF2? more convienent for your argument?

>>15587

TF2 is a f2p game with weapon side-grades (at least that's what they are supposed to be) which are easy to get without paying for them and cosmetics.

Also there is this quake mod that is selling really well recently, Cow of Duty or something like that.

Maybe you aren't pretending.

>>15588

>Maybe you aren't pretending.

that's it, I am actually retarded.

the truth is I am not worried about mods because of passionate and ethical people like you who would never charge a price for the mods they make.

>>15585

People have been complaining about steam and its many faults since release. Saying otherwise is incredibly dishonest. Being an edgy contrarian is all fun and games, though I implore you to take your epic bait to a more appropriate board >>>/v/

Originally posted on /v/ https://archive.is/lOP2O

Valve Employee Admits They May Be “Completely Wrong” Regarding Paid Mods

“…we may be completely wrong. In anything as complex as today’s games environment, you can never be certain in any prediction. If it turns out we are wrong, and that this somehow results in fewer good mods, or no free ones, or unhappy mod makers, then we’ll fix it, even if that means removing the feature entirely. The fundamental strength of the PC is that PC gamers improve their games, with or without the support of the developer, and we have every interest in keeping that alive.”

Considering the possibility, would you forgive them? Do you think this pr disaster will ever be forgotten in the pc community? Is this a new flamewar topic that will plague and divide pc gaming discussion?

>>15605

>Considering the possibility, would you forgive them?

Fuck no, they've shown their true face (not that they didn't before, with the obvious Summer Adventure rigging)

>Do you think this pr disaster will ever be forgotten in the pc community?

Perhaps, but the stain on Valve will remain forever

>Is this a new flamewar topic that will plague and divide pc gaming discussion?

Not really, we had

>Anon 1: Should I buy this on Steam?

>Anon 2: >Using DRM-ware

>Anon 3: FUCK OFF GOG SHILLING JEW!!1!!1

for a while now, this will just add fuel to the fire and give Steam apologists one less leg to stand on

>>15629

Yeah, but to be fair the phrase

>Being a DRM goy

is practically shitposting, I don't like the client, but any DRM used on it is brought on by the publishers, not Valve. Valve games don't have DRM either, like CS, TF2, etc. Unless you consider VAC DRM but I wouldn't. Implying that Steam is DRM in any context other than a physical copy needing a Steam activation is pretty foolish. I will concede that Physical copies shouldn't have to be activated in any context.

>>15633

>Implying that Steam is DRM in any context other than a physical copy needing a Steam activation is pretty foolish

But it isn't just activation, Valve can make all the games in your Steam library that need Steam running unplayable at any moment it wishes to. That's DRM

Also I'm pretty sure TF2 and CS, not to mention Half Life, Portal and L4D need Steam running in the background to be functional. I could be mistaken though since it has been a very long time since I played these and I never played the 2 former ones to begin with.

>>15635

>But it isn't just activation, Valve can make all the games in your Steam library that need Steam running unplayable at any moment it wishes to. That's DRM

You don't need to be connected to the internet to play a Steam game, you just have to launch it through the Steam client.Yes, Steam games need you to run it through Steam to use it, but you can do it in offline mod as well. I guess that might technically be DRM but since you can launch offline it's kind of a moot point.

>>15636

By the very definition of DRM steam is the cancer itself. It is a third party program with no game critical files whose only purpose is to be there to force you to run it so that you can not have freedom 0 of the FOSS freedoms to control how you run the software on your computer.

It's as nonsensical and asinine as forcing you to run solitaire or paint in order for a game to run.

>>15633

And no, valve shares an equal blame for standardizing DRM and being the one creating and allowing its implementation. They are just as much at fault as paid mods, publishers can decide if their games have paid mods as well. DRM was defeated in other digital media, and it has no right to stay in video games. It's an archaic, barbaric practice and the single most anti consumer invention there is.

>>15247

Once GOG Galaxy comes out I'm trying it out.

>>15642

>DRM was defeated in other digital media, and it has no right to stay in video games.

Fuck this, right here. Anyone who says "it can't be helped" or that one DRM is okay because "it's the lesser of evils" needs to be reminded that we fought this same battle in the digital music industry and we won. It can happen in video games too. All that is required is for people to reclaim their standards and their dignity as consumers.

>>15663

Pretty sure that's what cracks are for.

>>15671

Is there one single program that is a universal crack for all games so you never have to download a single torrent again?

When we get to that point, we will have won against DRM.

I don't get the outrage. If this move puts all mods (or at least the best mods) behind a paywall, then it means the only thing that stopped modders from doing this before was the hassle of setting up billing and distribution. It means the modders were greedy bastards from the start (as everyone is) and the so called modding spirit was a lie.

>>15683

Except that Valve exercises ZERO author verification

Gabe literally said "we trust the creator of the mod to have control over their work" when asked (Reddit Q&A) how Valve is going to distinguish between people selling the mods they own and thieves stealing other's work and selling it.

Which means that if you don't monetise your mod some asshole is going to rip the files and get money (more precisely Steambucks, lel) in your stead.

And with Nexus being Valve's partner in this there's no telling what is going to happen next, Nexus selling mods directly when the author neglects to do so?

Sounds crazy? Well if you'd have told me mods would be sold on Steam a week a go I would have called you crazy, and yet here we are

>>15711

The current "everyone does whatever they want" system also has zero author verification. Thieves just don't steal because charging money for it would put a spotlight on them.

I understand that having a convenient billing/distribution system will increase the volume of paid mods until grass roots policing won't scale. And I agree that this is a practical problem with Valve's proposed set-up. But I don't believe that we should put the whole thing on hold until Valve (or someone else) comes up with an efficient way to protect modder's intellectual property. Just let the floodgates open and watch the fallout.

It sounds irresponsible, but that's the same attitude we have when we tolerate torrent piracy in music, movies and videogames. We trust (or simply hope) the authors to figure out how to monetize their work despite not having airtight protection with their intellectual property. Just like how we don't consider a torrent download to be a "lost sale", I don't think we should consider a 100% free mod as a "lost profit".

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

They're taking down the paid mods

>>15727

https://archive.is/kVCDH

Pretty bummed out, but at least it elucidated their intentions for all to see.

>>15730

Fucking scratch that shit

>We understand our own game's communities pretty well, but stepping into an established, years old modding community in Skyrim was probably not the right place to start iterating

>but stepping into an established, years old modding community in Skyrim was probably not the right place to start iterating

Shit is still happening

Considering they listened to the outcry and decided to go with the consumer wish on this, I'm glad. Admitting that they goofed on this was probably the most mature thing to do in this scenario. While I'm cautious of Valve now, I'm at least happy they have some connection still to the consumer base.

>>15727

Didn't Bethesda just release a blogpost a couple of hours ago about how paid mods are a great idea and everything?

Otherwise the release of Dota 2 custom maps and Fallout 4 will be interesting. I hope that shitty idea stays dead.

>>15737

Although I agree in that Valve took the responsible "high road", I can't help but feel like there is something noxious in the apology. Why now? Why this late? Why did you end up in this situation?

The apology is appreciated, but it does not absolve the broken rational that seems to underlie the controversy. After all: many commentators have pointed out that Valve has created comparable and equally questionable practices in the past. Perhaps the recent hubbub is only the most noticeable manifestation of something more sinister, whatever that may be (greed, cowardice, disingenuousness, etc.)

>>15727

This doesn't change a thing. We've seen their true face now, valve has lost any trust it deserved.

>>15737

I'm probably still going to get all my games off Steam. Can't stand the thought of them being like "whoops, now you've got to pay for all these community made mods that you already have."

I wouldn't mind if they came back and just offered an easy way to donate to modders with this system, but now people are whipped up in anarchic fervour and just want valve to die.

>>15734

I doubt it, if I'm not mistaken, Skyrim was among if not the game with the most mods available through steam, I don't think any other game on steam has enough mod traffic for them (or more accurately, the publisher) to make a profit off of. If this system does come back, it will probably be on one of valve's own games.

>>15742

Honestly I think this follows the pattern that Valve has been following for a long time, and I don't necessarily see it as malicious, just misguided. Steam has tried to encourage content creation within the context of its own system (steam) for years, you see this with the workshop, giving people a chance to create their own content and have it recognised, but aside from valve games, most of what shows up on the workshop is made (and available) elsewhere, and the workshop is used as distribution. They're right when they say that money for content is a motivator (albeit a poor one), so this seemed like the next logical step, I was expecting it for years.

I think my biggest issue aside from replacing emotional work value with financial value, is the role of the publisher. If Gabe is to be believed (and even if he's been an asshole in the past, he's usually been pretty honest), steam is just the distribution service for paid mods, and their cut covers the expenses of hosting and not much more, they'd make pennies off of it, but the publisher can set how much the modder vs the publisher gets. Now I'm guessing that once money is changing hands outside of a donation, you legally have to get the publisher involved, there's the problem for me, the publisher making money for content they had no hand in (and hilariously more money than the actual content creator). I don't want the modding scene to be convoluted by a system of small complicated rules, it's just better for everyone if it's free.

So from where I'm standing, steam doesn't seem greedy, they just seem retarded or naive.

>>15788

I like the idea of donations. I don't like the idea of Valve and Bethesda forcing themselves into the role of middlemen, and taking the bulk of the cash for themselves. Rather if a mod team puts in a ton of work into it, they should be free to share donation information which they can already. Donating directly to them is the best solution.

>>15484

No you can't. What's in your game library is non-transferable. Only goods in your inventory can be traded.

>>15911

That's what I meant m8.

>>15792

Problem is it is illiegal for Valve to take a cut from donations going towards someone.

>>15585

I had a rage fit when I saw what happened back then to TF2.