13 ms·

Let's not underestimate what Valve has done here. At first they tried to give passionate content providers a way to also make some money. That's a huge thing. M

by erikb 12y ago

Let's not underestimate what Valve has done here. At first they tried to give passionate content providers a way to also make some money. That's a huge thing. Most modders can tell you about it. Then they screwed up, which can happen if you try something the first time. I think it's okay, but I understand why people are pissed. Then the boss himself comes and talks to people on reddit to see what is going on. He gets informed first, includes peoples ideas in his opinion, before making a decision. We know many big companies who wouldn't even thing about such a move. Finally they decide to shut it down as a failure and give back the money. All in all a very strong move. This at least made me believe in Valve again, after the last months slowly shipped away on my support for them. Kudos!

michaelt 12y ago
At first they tried to give passionate content providers a way to also make some money. Given that the "passionate content providers" only make 25% of what users pay, I think that's a very generous interpretation. Edit: It doesn't matter if it's Valve or Bethesda or the tooth fairy that takes the remaining 75% - the fact is this system does little to accomplish the goal of "giving passionate content providers a way to make some money" - indeed it's so wide of the mark it's hard to believe that was seriously the intention.
- jobvandervoort 12y ago
  As far as I understood that was a value set by Bethesda, not Valve.
  - efaref 12y ago
    And okayed by Valve.
  - jonlucc 12y ago
    The latest I've seen is that Valve gets 30%, then the publisher decides what the rest of the split looks like. If they had released the exact same system, but said the modders get 75%, I think this whole ordeal would have been avoided. It's interesting to me that it was apparently better to give modders nothing than to give them 25%.
    - draugadrotten 12y ago
      > It's interesting to me that it was apparently better to give modders nothing than to give them 25%. It's due to perceived "fairness" This 75/25 split by Valve reminds me of the psychology experiment the Ultimatum Game: "'Inequity aversion' is so strong that people are willing to sacrifice personal gain in order to prevent another person from receiving an inequitably better outcome." https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-work/200911/fair-play https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-work/200911/...
      - talmand 12y ago
        That's not quite the same. That game involves two people trying to figure out who gets what from a pot of money they did nothing to deserve receiving. Mod makers did work that may deserve compensation. One example is a possible bonus for the people involved, the other is a possible shafting for the people involved.
      - dragontamer 12y ago
        Inequity Aversion only exists in America and other Westernized countries btw. We're WEIRD like that. Different cultures respond differently to the Ultimatum Game. Be wary of those studies that only use "Anglo-Saxon American College Kids" as test subjects, which is a group of people that isn't even representative of America in general. http://bigthink.com/praxis/are-americans-the-weirdest-people-in-the-world http://bigthink.com/praxis/are-americans-the-weirdest-people... >>> The revelation that rural Peruvians handle the ultimatum game so differently from American respondents led Henrich on a MacArthur Foundation-funded research trip to more than a dozen more locales around the world, where he found wide variation in the average offers of player #1 and this curious result: “in some societies — ones where gift-giving is heavily used to curry favor or gain allegiance — the first player would often make overly generous offers in excess of 60 percent, and the second player would often reject them, behaviors almost never observed among Americans.”
        crdoconnor 12y ago
        >Inequity Aversion only exists in America and other Westernized countries btw. Monkeys do it: http://www.livescience.com/2044-monkeys-fuss-inequality.html http://www.livescience.com/2044-monkeys-fuss-inequality.html
  - mxfh 12y ago
    Yes they wanted 45% so Valve slapped on another 30% while not providing any or minimal QA from Valve or Bethesda for that other 75%?. As with the Store or Greenlight before outsourcing tasks to the community (reviews/greenlight votes) doesn't mean Valve isn't responsible for the stuff they offer in their store. A 24h hour refund policy is simply laughable when non-waiveable EU consumer rights regulations require 14 days. The other thing is the quite astronomic payout cap at $100 which means any hobbyist has to sell $400 ore more, depending on taxes before he see any of his efforts compensated. This further shows that Valve was not interested in amateurs but this was all about professionalizing the modding scene to a few contributors.
    - grovulent 12y ago
      And don't forget they were trying to minimise the potential competition and challenge to their revenue streams that modding represents.
    - Vespasian 12y ago
      > non-waiveable EU consumer rights regulations require 14 days I don't think this is true in the case of purely digital products. As far as I am aware of the german implementation of this regulation it explicitly allows to waive the rights before the first download. Like many companies steam does this during checkout ("I agree..").
      - mxfh 12y ago
        That Steam allows it doesn't make it legally binding or compliant with current regulations which override any TOS/EULA in a given legal region. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/distance_selling.html http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consum... «In the case of digital content, the cooling-off period expires when the downloading or streaming starts.» Says you can't waive it; for digital downloads the 14 day period get's annulled once you start downloading/streaming, not at checkout. Since many more things can go wrong with software(games) then compared to linear media (books/music/video) that implementation is still questionable. Untouched by this, at least in Germany every product sold (including Software) comes with two years of warranty ("Gewährleistung") which is established between the consumer an the reseller (at point of final sale, in this case Valve SARL) which first requires the reseller to provide a working product ("Nacherfüllung") if that's not possible the customer is entitled to a refund. Not that that this is found in many online shops in Germany, but those are the regulations that Valve has to follow by when selling software (games) to German customers.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Oh so you think Valve has no negotiation power over this kind of things?
- random28345 12y ago
  So the closest analogue to computer game "mods" in the book publishing world is "fan fiction". Note that 25% is pretty generous when you're creating a derivitive work off of someone else's IP. See Kindle Worlds http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001197421 http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001197421 for an example of the kind of deal you'd be lucky to get.
  - sangnoir 12y ago
    > Note that 25% is pretty generous when you're creating a derivitive work off of someone else's IP Your opinion is in the minority, I'm afraid. By and large,the gaming community (on reddit at least) has spoken, and Valve took heed.
  - dysfunction 12y ago
    Fan-fiction doesn't require you to have bought the original work to read (though having read the original may affect your enjoyment of the fanfic). Honda doesn't get a cut if I have my car modded at an independent shop.
    - random28345 12y ago
      > Honda doesn't get a cut if I have my car modded at an independent shop. Not yet at least. However car (and tractor) manufacturers are moving to make such activity illegal using encryption and intellectual propertly laws. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that our current regulatory regime supports this model.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Amazon Publishing will acquire all rights to your new stories, including global publication rights, for the term of copyright. Yikes.
- ux-app 12y ago
  I haven't been paying extra close attention to the whole fiasco, but there's something that I don't understand. Are people really more in favor of modders getting 100% of $0 rather than 25% of $X? Is there more to this debate that I'm missing?
  - lsaferite 12y ago
    As much as the idea of paid mods pissed me off, I 100% agree with this. Anyone who was getting upset over the 25% to the modder was just using it as an argument point and not serious. If they were serious then they would have come to the same conclusion you did and realized 25% of something is better, monetarily, than 100% of nothing.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      That doesn't hold up. The argument that Y% of X is better than 100% of 0 for 100 > Y > 0 doesn't seem to hold up if we set Y to be really low, say .01%. Thus we accept that at some point, a certain percent of some amount of money is a 'slap in the face' compared to it being free and based on donations. That some people think that is at 25 instead of .01 does not mean they have a hidden agenda.
      - lsaferite 12y ago
        I'd say the person who can rightfully make that argument is the person choosing to sell or not sell their content.
        Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        My point is independent of who deserves to make that argument. I am merely saying that those who do make that argument are not always doing so with a hidden agenda.
        darkmighty 12y ago
        Yes, but you cannot judge 25% sufficient (a priori) like that, just as you can't judge any % insufficient a priori. It may very well be too low and damage the community. And clearly the consensus was that it is too low.
- cma 12y ago
  If you make a Mickey Mouse sequel using derivative assets, how much of a cut would Disney want? Keeping in mind the assets would be open to competing high-caliber studios (back to the Skyrim example, just allowing for free modding generally precludes competing triple-A's from producing anything, but give them say a "fair" 75% cut of expansions or complete sequels to a competitor's bockbuster game, taking advantage of all their lore, characters, graphical assets, and game engine?).
  - adam12 12y ago
    75% should go to the modders. If people are buying the mod, then the mod developer deserves most of the cash for the mod purchase. Remember, the player needs to buy the original game too. Those funds don't go to the mod developer.
    - speeder 12y ago
      You misunderstood. 75% is not to the mod developer, 75% was to Bethesda, and 25% to the mod developer. This is what pissed people off. (Also, the developer would only get paid if he got 100 USD to receive, meaning that he needed 400 USD in sales, meaning that probably most developers would never get any money).
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - koube 12y ago
        As mentioned by the guy above you, 30% was to valve, and bethesda determined the rest. A 30% cut is similar to what you'd get from the app store and in my opinion is reasonable for the costs of hosting and perhaps supporting the mods. This all seems like an attempt to app-storify mods. I really didn't think it was a bad thing.
    - stfnppv 12y ago
      Except in this case the 75% was going to the studios (Valve got their flat 30% cut, as with everything, and Bethesda elected to charge a further 45%). The modders were getting 25%.
- drawkbox 12y ago
  > Given that the "passionate content providers" only make 25% of what users pay, I think that's a very generous interpretation. True however market rate for platform/store is 30% + 20% royalty if you use an IP + 5%-10% for engine or more for publishing dollars. Many regular game breakdowns are the game developer only get 40-60% revenues, 70% if they have no other costs on most stores including Steam. With the paid mods Valve took 30% (industry average although it should be challenged -- set by Apple), Bethesda took 45%, 25% for royalty and 20% for their take. Leaving 25% for the content creator. Other developers could have given up to 50% to the content creator which is as good as many developers get on an original title. Valve probably wants to give more but they can't because other developers would be scared away due to unfairness since Valve owns the platform. 25% is low yes but it is more than people make at a crappy job or more than anyone gets at their day job in terms of ownership or points on profit/work. I think with the backlash it is good that people can influence companies but much of it was black and white. Mods will always exist with or without Steam. Free mods would only grow with a paid mod side market as any economy grows when money is added in, the free side would have grown. Many of the sharing issues could have been alleviated with a shareable license the creator could add. Pay what you want with a simple breakdown could have been default like Humble Bundle. They also should have launched it with a better breakdown on the initial developer and game chosen. The mod market will get money invading it again as it is immense and we live in a capitalist system where nothing of sufficient size evades money, but it will be smarter next time. Over the long term, it will make mods more prevalent and overall quality will go up at the top. There may even be a mod professional job someday, I think it is good when people can make income from making or playing games. If you can make money doing what you love then you can spend more time doing it. And donations aren't enough for good mod makers to keep doing it when there are other things they can do.
- gibsonje 12y ago
  This little subtopic can't be summed up in a sentence. Valve didn't set the 25% number, and that's the important part. Bethesda opted to take over 40%.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  In a way, this reminds me of the old joke: > A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows: > She: What kind of woman do you think I am? > He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price. The important bit here is that mod developers can get paid. How much is a matter of negotiation and revising.
danr4 12y ago
Actually, I think both launching it and canceling it were ill-conceived moves. The first - obviously didn't align well with the community's (more like the mod users) intentions. The canceling - Upset quality producing modders who think they should be compensated for their time and effort, and now makes them part "part of valve's greediness" in the eyes of users. Seems like they didn't think all the way through in both moves.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > Seems like they didn't think all the way through in both moves. Yes, it looks pretty bad, and it makes Valve look like a bunch of amateurs. And this is coming from someone who generally likes what they do.
  - namlem 12y ago
    The thing is they always do shit like this. Steam had tons of problems in the early days. And remember when Greenlight was launched? Total shitshow. Valve doesn't always think things through all the way, but eventually, they work out the bugs and the result ends up being pretty damn good.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      > Valve doesn't always think things through all the way Sure, but they are not like in the early days, they have experienced people now, and tons of cash, and should not be making the same mistakes over and over again like they were beginners or something. It just reflects badly on the whole company.
- erikb 12y ago
  I think and hope that they will try again with another game that isn't out yet or at least has no strong mod community yet. That's what they decided as the biggest problem, experimenting on a big community instead of a small one.
Navarr 12y ago
Hijacking for visibility (I'm so late to the party..) Valve has not ended the paid mods programme. They've only turned it off for Skyrim. From the Valve post: > We're going to remove the payment feature from the Skyrim workshop. They're very explicitly removing it only from Skyrim. Personally, I'm completely okay with the paid mod system - and I think the reason it failed so spectacularly was because of Bethesda and the invisibleness of the "Valve takes 30%, Bethesda takes 45%" - But it is important to note
- erikb 12y ago
  Yes, sorry, didn't say that clearly enough. The real mistake here was starting with the biggest mod community they have. You should first try to find a good system without being so public about it. And that's what they will change. Iterating with a smaller project.
  - Navarr 12y ago
    I'm personally incredibly hopeful for Tabletop Simulator. The Skyrim community was just a bad fit, and Bethesda a terrible overlord.
SN76477 12y ago
Valve are people and people make mistakes. With that said, lets make sure that we pay attention to how FEW mistakes they make.

by erikb 12y ago

michaelt 12y ago

At first they tried to give passionate content providers a way to also make some money. Given that the "passionate content providers" only make 25% of what users pay, I think that's a very generous interpretation. Edit: It doesn't matter if it's Valve or Bethesda or the tooth fairy that takes the remaining 75% - the fact is this system does little to accomplish the goal of "giving passionate content providers a way to make some money" - indeed it's so wide of the mark it's hard to believe that was seriously the intention.

jobvandervoort 12y ago
As far as I understood that was a value set by Bethesda, not Valve.
- efaref 12y ago
  And okayed by Valve.
- jonlucc 12y ago
  The latest I've seen is that Valve gets 30%, then the publisher decides what the rest of the split looks like. If they had released the exact same system, but said the modders get 75%, I think this whole ordeal would have been avoided. It's interesting to me that it was apparently better to give modders nothing than to give them 25%.
  - draugadrotten 12y ago
    > It's interesting to me that it was apparently better to give modders nothing than to give them 25%. It's due to perceived "fairness" This 75/25 split by Valve reminds me of the psychology experiment the Ultimatum Game: "'Inequity aversion' is so strong that people are willing to sacrifice personal gain in order to prevent another person from receiving an inequitably better outcome." https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-work/200911/fair-play https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-work/200911/...
    - talmand 12y ago
      That's not quite the same. That game involves two people trying to figure out who gets what from a pot of money they did nothing to deserve receiving. Mod makers did work that may deserve compensation. One example is a possible bonus for the people involved, the other is a possible shafting for the people involved.
    - dragontamer 12y ago
      Inequity Aversion only exists in America and other Westernized countries btw. We're WEIRD like that. Different cultures respond differently to the Ultimatum Game. Be wary of those studies that only use "Anglo-Saxon American College Kids" as test subjects, which is a group of people that isn't even representative of America in general. http://bigthink.com/praxis/are-americans-the-weirdest-people-in-the-world http://bigthink.com/praxis/are-americans-the-weirdest-people... >>> The revelation that rural Peruvians handle the ultimatum game so differently from American respondents led Henrich on a MacArthur Foundation-funded research trip to more than a dozen more locales around the world, where he found wide variation in the average offers of player #1 and this curious result: “in some societies — ones where gift-giving is heavily used to curry favor or gain allegiance — the first player would often make overly generous offers in excess of 60 percent, and the second player would often reject them, behaviors almost never observed among Americans.”
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        >Inequity Aversion only exists in America and other Westernized countries btw. Monkeys do it: http://www.livescience.com/2044-monkeys-fuss-inequality.html http://www.livescience.com/2044-monkeys-fuss-inequality.html
- mxfh 12y ago
  Yes they wanted 45% so Valve slapped on another 30% while not providing any or minimal QA from Valve or Bethesda for that other 75%?. As with the Store or Greenlight before outsourcing tasks to the community (reviews/greenlight votes) doesn't mean Valve isn't responsible for the stuff they offer in their store. A 24h hour refund policy is simply laughable when non-waiveable EU consumer rights regulations require 14 days. The other thing is the quite astronomic payout cap at $100 which means any hobbyist has to sell $400 ore more, depending on taxes before he see any of his efforts compensated. This further shows that Valve was not interested in amateurs but this was all about professionalizing the modding scene to a few contributors.
  - grovulent 12y ago
    And don't forget they were trying to minimise the potential competition and challenge to their revenue streams that modding represents.
  - Vespasian 12y ago
    > non-waiveable EU consumer rights regulations require 14 days I don't think this is true in the case of purely digital products. As far as I am aware of the german implementation of this regulation it explicitly allows to waive the rights before the first download. Like many companies steam does this during checkout ("I agree..").
    - mxfh 12y ago
      That Steam allows it doesn't make it legally binding or compliant with current regulations which override any TOS/EULA in a given legal region. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/distance_selling.html http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consum... «In the case of digital content, the cooling-off period expires when the downloading or streaming starts.» Says you can't waive it; for digital downloads the 14 day period get's annulled once you start downloading/streaming, not at checkout. Since many more things can go wrong with software(games) then compared to linear media (books/music/video) that implementation is still questionable. Untouched by this, at least in Germany every product sold (including Software) comes with two years of warranty ("Gewährleistung") which is established between the consumer an the reseller (at point of final sale, in this case Valve SARL) which first requires the reseller to provide a working product ("Nacherfüllung") if that's not possible the customer is entitled to a refund. Not that that this is found in many online shops in Germany, but those are the regulations that Valve has to follow by when selling software (games) to German customers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Oh so you think Valve has no negotiation power over this kind of things?
random28345 12y ago
So the closest analogue to computer game "mods" in the book publishing world is "fan fiction". Note that 25% is pretty generous when you're creating a derivitive work off of someone else's IP. See Kindle Worlds http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001197421 http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001197421 for an example of the kind of deal you'd be lucky to get.
- sangnoir 12y ago
  > Note that 25% is pretty generous when you're creating a derivitive work off of someone else's IP Your opinion is in the minority, I'm afraid. By and large,the gaming community (on reddit at least) has spoken, and Valve took heed.
- dysfunction 12y ago
  Fan-fiction doesn't require you to have bought the original work to read (though having read the original may affect your enjoyment of the fanfic). Honda doesn't get a cut if I have my car modded at an independent shop.
  - random28345 12y ago
    > Honda doesn't get a cut if I have my car modded at an independent shop. Not yet at least. However car (and tractor) manufacturers are moving to make such activity illegal using encryption and intellectual propertly laws. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that our current regulatory regime supports this model.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Amazon Publishing will acquire all rights to your new stories, including global publication rights, for the term of copyright. Yikes.
ux-app 12y ago
I haven't been paying extra close attention to the whole fiasco, but there's something that I don't understand. Are people really more in favor of modders getting 100% of $0 rather than 25% of $X? Is there more to this debate that I'm missing?
- lsaferite 12y ago
  As much as the idea of paid mods pissed me off, I 100% agree with this. Anyone who was getting upset over the 25% to the modder was just using it as an argument point and not serious. If they were serious then they would have come to the same conclusion you did and realized 25% of something is better, monetarily, than 100% of nothing.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    That doesn't hold up. The argument that Y% of X is better than 100% of 0 for 100 > Y > 0 doesn't seem to hold up if we set Y to be really low, say .01%. Thus we accept that at some point, a certain percent of some amount of money is a 'slap in the face' compared to it being free and based on donations. That some people think that is at 25 instead of .01 does not mean they have a hidden agenda.
    - lsaferite 12y ago
      I'd say the person who can rightfully make that argument is the person choosing to sell or not sell their content.
      - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        My point is independent of who deserves to make that argument. I am merely saying that those who do make that argument are not always doing so with a hidden agenda.
      - darkmighty 12y ago
        Yes, but you cannot judge 25% sufficient (a priori) like that, just as you can't judge any % insufficient a priori. It may very well be too low and damage the community. And clearly the consensus was that it is too low.
cma 12y ago
If you make a Mickey Mouse sequel using derivative assets, how much of a cut would Disney want? Keeping in mind the assets would be open to competing high-caliber studios (back to the Skyrim example, just allowing for free modding generally precludes competing triple-A's from producing anything, but give them say a "fair" 75% cut of expansions or complete sequels to a competitor's bockbuster game, taking advantage of all their lore, characters, graphical assets, and game engine?).
- adam12 12y ago
  75% should go to the modders. If people are buying the mod, then the mod developer deserves most of the cash for the mod purchase. Remember, the player needs to buy the original game too. Those funds don't go to the mod developer.
  - speeder 12y ago
    You misunderstood. 75% is not to the mod developer, 75% was to Bethesda, and 25% to the mod developer. This is what pissed people off. (Also, the developer would only get paid if he got 100 USD to receive, meaning that he needed 400 USD in sales, meaning that probably most developers would never get any money).
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - koube 12y ago
      As mentioned by the guy above you, 30% was to valve, and bethesda determined the rest. A 30% cut is similar to what you'd get from the app store and in my opinion is reasonable for the costs of hosting and perhaps supporting the mods. This all seems like an attempt to app-storify mods. I really didn't think it was a bad thing.
  - stfnppv 12y ago
    Except in this case the 75% was going to the studios (Valve got their flat 30% cut, as with everything, and Bethesda elected to charge a further 45%). The modders were getting 25%.
drawkbox 12y ago
> Given that the "passionate content providers" only make 25% of what users pay, I think that's a very generous interpretation. True however market rate for platform/store is 30% + 20% royalty if you use an IP + 5%-10% for engine or more for publishing dollars. Many regular game breakdowns are the game developer only get 40-60% revenues, 70% if they have no other costs on most stores including Steam. With the paid mods Valve took 30% (industry average although it should be challenged -- set by Apple), Bethesda took 45%, 25% for royalty and 20% for their take. Leaving 25% for the content creator. Other developers could have given up to 50% to the content creator which is as good as many developers get on an original title. Valve probably wants to give more but they can't because other developers would be scared away due to unfairness since Valve owns the platform. 25% is low yes but it is more than people make at a crappy job or more than anyone gets at their day job in terms of ownership or points on profit/work. I think with the backlash it is good that people can influence companies but much of it was black and white. Mods will always exist with or without Steam. Free mods would only grow with a paid mod side market as any economy grows when money is added in, the free side would have grown. Many of the sharing issues could have been alleviated with a shareable license the creator could add. Pay what you want with a simple breakdown could have been default like Humble Bundle. They also should have launched it with a better breakdown on the initial developer and game chosen. The mod market will get money invading it again as it is immense and we live in a capitalist system where nothing of sufficient size evades money, but it will be smarter next time. Over the long term, it will make mods more prevalent and overall quality will go up at the top. There may even be a mod professional job someday, I think it is good when people can make income from making or playing games. If you can make money doing what you love then you can spend more time doing it. And donations aren't enough for good mod makers to keep doing it when there are other things they can do.
gibsonje 12y ago
This little subtopic can't be summed up in a sentence. Valve didn't set the 25% number, and that's the important part. Bethesda opted to take over 40%.
IgorPartola 12y ago
In a way, this reminds me of the old joke: > A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows: > She: What kind of woman do you think I am? > He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price. The important bit here is that mod developers can get paid. How much is a matter of negotiation and revising.

danr4 12y ago

Actually, I think both launching it and canceling it were ill-conceived moves. The first - obviously didn't align well with the community's (more like the mod users) intentions. The canceling - Upset quality producing modders who think they should be compensated for their time and effort, and now makes them part "part of valve's greediness" in the eyes of users. Seems like they didn't think all the way through in both moves.

ekianjo 12y ago
> Seems like they didn't think all the way through in both moves. Yes, it looks pretty bad, and it makes Valve look like a bunch of amateurs. And this is coming from someone who generally likes what they do.
- namlem 12y ago
  The thing is they always do shit like this. Steam had tons of problems in the early days. And remember when Greenlight was launched? Total shitshow. Valve doesn't always think things through all the way, but eventually, they work out the bugs and the result ends up being pretty damn good.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > Valve doesn't always think things through all the way Sure, but they are not like in the early days, they have experienced people now, and tons of cash, and should not be making the same mistakes over and over again like they were beginners or something. It just reflects badly on the whole company.
erikb 12y ago
I think and hope that they will try again with another game that isn't out yet or at least has no strong mod community yet. That's what they decided as the biggest problem, experimenting on a big community instead of a small one.

Navarr 12y ago

Hijacking for visibility (I'm so late to the party..) Valve has not ended the paid mods programme. They've only turned it off for Skyrim. From the Valve post: > We're going to remove the payment feature from the Skyrim workshop. They're very explicitly removing it only from Skyrim. Personally, I'm completely okay with the paid mod system - and I think the reason it failed so spectacularly was because of Bethesda and the invisibleness of the "Valve takes 30%, Bethesda takes 45%" - But it is important to note

erikb 12y ago
Yes, sorry, didn't say that clearly enough. The real mistake here was starting with the biggest mod community they have. You should first try to find a good system without being so public about it. And that's what they will change. Iterating with a smaller project.
- Navarr 12y ago
  I'm personally incredibly hopeful for Tabletop Simulator. The Skyrim community was just a bad fit, and Bethesda a terrible overlord.

SN76477 12y ago

Valve are people and people make mistakes. With that said, lets make sure that we pay attention to how FEW mistakes they make.