/svidya/ - Strict /v/

But most mods are based off of stuff from other things, from Zelda to Thundercats.

Why….?

The Jewry is truly thick here, but at the very least they're putting emphasis on the refund policy and the option for modders of choosing to keep their mods free or letting the buyer pay what they want.

The onus is now on modders to decide whether or not they decide to jew out with this policy. I'm optimistic that most modders realize that putting a price tag on your mod is probably a kiss of death.

>>15249

There will always be the "dollar for single weapon" types.

While in theory I see this as a positive, certain things really grind my gears, the 25-75% cut off is complete and utter highway robbery. I think supporting modders with donations is a great way of showing support but this just takes that discussion to another level.

Now, now, OP, you don't know know how much Bethesda is getting out of it. I agree, it's shitty but Bethesda is likely being greedy as fuck as well. That's all I mean.

If Steam wanted to make some simple way to allow people to give to modders they should have added a donation button or whatever.

It was posted in the news thread but modders will only get a payout when they earn $100, so their mod(s) need to earn $400 before they see any of it.

>>15257

If Bethesda had any real interest monetizing mods for their games, they would have done it a long time ago on their own and not have to give a cut to Valve.

>>15259

I can't see Bethesda sitting by letting Valve get money from mods for a game that isn't theirs without calling a lawyer for a cut of that money.

They couldn't force it on a fan site, or force modders to do it, it has to be opt-in and Steam is the biggest digital PC store, it's the best place for them to do it.

>>15257

You don't understand.

Valve is making money from content they didn't do shit all for making. Let me add, they are making more money than the people who made the content. They pretended to invent pc modding when the steam workshop came out, and now they are turning it into the steam sweatshop for their wallet. There is no part of this that can be defended. Donations for modders has always existed.

>>15262

I didn't defended anything about this. I was only saying that it's likely that Bethesda is involved as well. They're both being greedy trying to turn make money from "fan-made DLC", some of which is early access and others currently have no proof that the uploaders are the original makers (so basically people can download them from nexus, etc., and then sell it on steam).

>Donations for modders has always existed.

Yes, but Steam could have worked it into their system for ease. That would involve them having to care about their users though.

>>15260

They easily could have bought up the Nexus and made just a few alterations to monetize modding there. Nexus gets far more use for Skyrim than Steam Workshop as well.

>>15266

If this goes on Steam Workshop will encourage any modder with half of a brain to take all of their work down from the Nexus and make it exclusively monetized on Steam Workshop. There is no reason for them not to do this and yet somehow people use this as a defense.

>>15268

My point is if this was Bethesda's desire, they would have gone about it another way that wouldn't have them splitting the money three ways.

This doesn't stop with skyrim.

Maybe most people don't care for it. But lots people are greedy.

>mount and blade modders see this

>pull their mods from moddb, nexus, other sites

>put them on steam behind a paywall

This is only opening the gates for games you like and play to be directly affected and limit the content you would have for free otherwise.

This is what happens because people supported valve.

>>15257

The problem isn't how much Valve and Bethesda are getting, it's that the people who are actually doing the "work" only get 25%

>>15269

If they are so against splitting money three ways then why have they released their game on steam and even force you to use steam if you bought the game somewhere else?

Another one to add to the list.

-Drm

-In-house Psychologist(s)

-Ability to phone home to valve with your browsing history

-Revokes in-game content

-Releases unfinished/unplayable/broken games

-Hell broke loose when Gabe had to personally intervene when Hatred was removed

-Egregious use of digital goods such as cards and microtransactions: preying on the weak

+Adding a paywall to what has been free for decades because reasons ;^)

>>15274

Because selling a game on steam gets you 1000% more sales compared to physical retail or any other digital distributor. Though that number has probably diminished somewhat in the past year or so with the floodgates being opened and all forms of quality control having been thrown out the window.

With Skyrim modding, it isn't even a contest. The Skyrim Nexus has twice as many mods on it, is used by far more people than Steam Workshop, on top of it being the center for modding all of Bethesda's other games. If Bethesda was the one interested in monetizing mods, they would have done it through there. This is Valve's venture.

>>15276

Could we have someone make a detailed chart for all of those (factual, such as how you literally can not play 90% of steam games from the game executable without having the third party steam program installed and running simultaneously)? It would be both useful and some nice /svidya/ OC.

the only answer at this point is piracy, as a mostly ex pirate, i can see no other way than to sail back out and grab and spread anything made by someone who supports this

>>15282

Exactly. I have no issue buying a game but if some jew wants to charge for their mod I'll be sailing the high seas to plunder, yarrr

>>15282

I wonder if there will be enough people who are motivated enough to buy and upload anything but the most popular mods.

>>15297

EA has kill companies after systematically draining them of any value they had left, all the while charging for absurd DLC and supporting questionable business practices. This is Valve being money grubbing not psychopathic.

>>15298

Kotick would be proud though.

>>15276

Honestly after that Hatred ordeal I do have to wonder how involved Gaben is at all aspects when it comes to Valve and Steam. For all we know he assissts in game making but leaves a lot of decisions in regards to steam to other people.

I still want to truly believe he is a based man, dammit.

I have no problem with this in theory, but the actual system they've implemented is far, far too abusable with people being able to upload anything and then potentially make money off someone else's work. In addition to that the huge price cut valve takes is ridiculous, but my biggest problem with the whole thing is that there's no way to tell if mods are 100% compatible.

A much better system in my opinion would be to just make user created content officially put into the game, like skins and maps for csgo or cosmetics in tf2/dota while keeping everything else free. Essentially the devs would just polish some well made mods and then make them into dlc (most of the money should go to the modders themselves of course).

Isn't Gabe (and the co-owner who noone every remembers) already a billionaire? They have no shareholders to answer too, they're already immensely profitable, I don't understand why they made this decision.

Who's idea was it? Why? What is going on? Did publishers push for it?

>>15287

Time to shill out GoG

Valve is removing donation/patreon links that mods had in their descriptions.

https://i.imgur.com/wW5j5yu.png

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=430854203

>>15266

Nexus is run by a community of fans.

>Nexus gets more use

From people who aren't going to pay for shit - if they hypothetically did that people would simply leave and make another site. Steam is where people spend their money on digital goods. To make money, that's where to go.

>>15273

Agreed, I just think it's important not to forget the publisher in this and all future issues with it.

>>15325

>I don't understand why they made this decision.

More money.

>>15331

>More money

To spend on what?

http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/workshoplegalagreement/?appid=72850

>The percentage of Adjusted Gross Revenue that you are entitled to receive will be determined by the developer/publisher of the Application associated with the Workshop to which you have submitted your Contribution (“Publisher”), and will be described on the applicable Workshop page.

Confirmation that Bethesda is greedy as fuck and Valve is happy to let publishers abuse this shit.

>>15336

A new boat.

>>15282

Absolutely. I'm fine with donating, but try to make a some shekels, and the lack flag is the one I'll fly.

>>15276

>Drm

>In-house Psychologist(s)

>Ability to phone home to valve with your browsing history

>Revokes in-game content

>Releases unfinished/unplayable/broken games

>Hell broke loose when Gabe had to personally intervene when Hatred was removed

>Egregious use of digital goods such as cards and microtransactions: preying on the weak

>Adding a paywall to what has been free for decades because reasons ;^)

Oh yes, almost forgot:

-Censors chat if you've ever linked anything 'problematic' (googlebotnet.drive, kickass, half+fullchan) or if you haven't spent enough money. Last point is sometimes ignored, thus arbitrary censorship, even for loyal customers.

-False sense of ownership. Games can be revoked at any time for whatever reason, will sometimes tell your mom.

>>15353

>>15276

>>In-house Psychologist(s)

What is this in reference to?

>>15355

Valve has psychologists working for them full-time, as advertised on their storefront/website.

>>15256

Keep this trash at /v/ please.

>>15358

sorry, I was really worked up

>>15336

More money.

You should be asking why they would do something so risky however.

>>15355

Apologizing for going off the rails here, but why would that be an issue? Let's step aside that many companies have business psychologists and social workers, so singling out Valve seems both biased and idiotic, but what is wrong with a company hiring a psychologist?

Forgot my sage.

>>15364

I believe they use psychologist to see the player's reaction while playing under a psychological matter, and change design choices accordingly

>>15364

Nothing is wrong with hiring psychologists as a business to improve the workplace environment.

It is naive to assume that that is their only usefulness, especially in the context of a storefront. Their seasonal sale events included elements of gambling starting with the 2014 summer sale.

The summer event was based around a number of different colored teams, chosen at random after a deliberate sign-up. Points were amassed by spending specific amounts of money and creating badges. Everyday throughout the two week event, a winning team would be announced and a small number of them that contributed at least one point received a free game from their wishlist. Reddit rigged it by forming an alliance subreddit to allow every team a fair shot at first prize. Each team had a dedicated assigned day for getting points and for the first few days it became predictable. Valve caught wind of this and added a 2nd and 3rd place, breaking the stability the alliance formed. There was also the addition of the ability to change teams by purchasing tokens from the market.

Winter sale had gems. Didn't pay as much attention to the even because I knew it was more of the same.

tl:dr Valve is canadian devil, no nuance.

>>15375

I don't even

Sound like a pyramid scheme by how he describes it.

"If only your family give you some money, it's not much. But if your family then ask their friends and their family to give some money, that's a lot of money!"

>>15376

I'll also add, idea parking.

Just release loads of crap, then wait till something might pick up.

Which also opens it up for shilling when you have similar (popular) mods and one take more place over the other.

>>15372

>>15368

I see; very interesting. Thank you.

I can see rockstar hopping on the shekel train.

>>15375

the problem is that in such an example the modder wouldn't get any money. payment is set up so that the minimum amount of money brought in through mod sales is $400 if you want to see a penny. i think a lot of the smaller modders and hopefuls who see this as a money making break will be very disappointed with the results.

then again shovelware devs on the android market seem pretty happy and it has a similar payment scheme.

>>15382

They've got a shekel system in place with their Online and their Shark Cards.

>>15417

The problem is three fold. First, a lot of mods are actually dependent on other mods. So if you make a mod that relies on another that is pay only, you still are forced to pay cash for mods. Secondly, this incentivises people TO put mods behind a paywall. For example, in FO:NV there's the Someguy series, all require the master file Someguy.esm. Not only could you charge that, you can also charge for each individual mod tied to it. 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. If Steam made an option where they linked directly to a modders' pateron and only took 5%, this would totally not be an issue as there is still no price tag, but that inclusion means you're essentially making fan made DLC.

>>15278

>>15281

>>15282

>>15287

So how would I go about emancipating my 200+ game library from Steam?

>>15420

gamecopyworld is my goto for steam cracks

kat.cr (formerly kickass.to) is good for torrents

ask on >>>/scurv/, they could help

>>15420

Few options.

Go cold turkey and abandon everything. Sell/donate all your digital goods to prevent relapse.

Delete everyone from your friend list save for those you actually know or play with regularly. Set profile to maximum privacy. Only play multiplayer games you really like.

I'd also suggest anons to hold onto their account info. It's risky business, but I imagine there might be a demand for older accounts if valve doesn't go under.

>>15262

>they are making more money than the people who made the content

Its always been that way though with TF2 and Dota 2.

>>15417

No, free mods will cost money and the mods that cost money will be free. Clearly.

The reason why I and many people are against this is it goes against what a Mod (And also Rom hack) is, its created by a group to show support for something, giving something back to something they really liked, here its being made for money not for support of a game, its making modders into Little Ubisofts and Activisions, soon they wont care and just throw a random thing out there to get money like Ubisoft and Activion do, this is a major blow in Modding and Rom Hacking communities

>>15417

The issue is not immediate, but imagine this on the long run. We will end up with paid mods only, and with creators that get a very little percentage

>>15409

I agree with this. How the hell are you going to prevent mods from being pirated? They're often small files (even the bigger mods are relatively small) which can easily be copied (as we already have seen with people stealing mods from Nexis and other places). Likewise: although I don't think it is a bad idea for mod makers to get paid (they create content after all), forcing a paywall in front of the content just makes me not want to use the mod at all.

Imagine if an artist hides their artworks behind a paywall. I'm not talking about exhibitions or gallery showings, no no: I mean they have a digital gallery which you can only access after paying five bucks.

Everyone would think they were greedy egotists. And I don't think this is far removed from the position mod makers find themselves in.

>>15423

>sell/donate all your digital goods

Now how's that gonna work?

>>15421

>>15421

>kickass.to

still works tho

My main concern is what happens if I make a mod and someone else puts it on the workshop and charges? https://steamcommunity.com/dmca/create/ and http://www.valvesoftware.com/legal.html don't say anything about what happens to any money they make off my work.

https://archive.is/66fit#selection-661.75-661.354

Saw this on /gamergatehq/

>>15482

It's very simple, if a modder does that save their name to a txt file and never DL any of their mods ever.

I honestly have nothing against people charging for overhaul mods but anything less is jewery.

>>15474

I do not understand your question. You can sell your stuff on the community market . If you want to be more noble you can donate it to a random user, makes no difference.

>>15479

What happens is nobody buys the mod since there is an exact copy for free

>>15491

Fools with money, man, they'll probably buy it without checking.

>>15479

What if the mod is old as fuck, the creator gone, and the scammer free to do what they want?

>step one, get users to use your proprietary software and create content for you for free

>step two, seize ownership of said content and sell it back to users.

Buying imaginary property is great huh kids?

>>15505

gosh guys, it's called IP

Gabe is in full damage control mode on reddit. More to come later. Ctrl+f GabeNewellBellevue.

https://archive.is/ou2Kt

"On Thursday I was flying back from LA. When I landed, I had 3,500 new messages. Hmmm. Looks like we did something to piss off the Internet.

Yesterday I was distracted as I had to see my surgeon about a blister in my eye (#FuchsDystrophySucks), but I got some background on the paid mods issues.

So here I am, probably a day late, to make sure that if people are pissed off, they are at least pissed off for the right reasons."

>>15529

https://archive.is/p0F6f

>Actually money is how the community steers work.

People are upset. It's hilarious.

>>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.