12 ms·

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 gett

by ux-app 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
    I'd say the person who can rightfully make that argument is the person choosing to sell or not sell their content.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y 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 11y 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.
- grogen 11y ago
  Fair distribution is one of the situations in which rationality breaks down. See the ultimatum game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
- Already__Taken 11y ago
  It's also a sting as others have mentions because the customer already must have bought 100% of something to get assets the will use. The publisher skimming 75% off 100% of the value that modders created for free seems a bit shitty. Especially when there's still no requirement for the original developer to have made the modders lives any easier to get this benefit.
smackfu 11y ago
That seems like an argument that any percentage is fine as long as it's above zero. But certainly people can debate over what a fair percentage is.
TheHypnotist 11y ago
People are in favor of offering donations and having the modder get the full donation, not being asked to pay for added content. This includes full-fledged mods to a single weapon skin. To make things worse, it seemed that the store became flooded with half-assed content as a means for modders to make a quick buck. Furthermore, some mods required other mods, if the mods that were required started to charge, it became EXTREMELY prohibitive to piggyback. Most gamers are aware of how Valve became so big and it's through the modding community in HL1 and eventually HL2. Can you imagine how prohibitive it would have been for Counter-Strike to grow if they charged $10 for the mod (obviously when it was till a mod =< v1.6)? On top of that, some mods were genuine improvements over the original. For instance, there is a huge Skyrim UI mod that is a vast improvement over the vanilla. Some people were actually afraid that game companies would use this pay for mod system as a way to double dip. "Let's release a half-assed UI, let some modder charge for his better UI and take 45-50% of his sales."
- emodendroket 11y ago
  They sold Counterstrike as a retail release when it was still a mod. The donation stuff is a sure way to make sure almost no one ever even considers paying.
  - TheHypnotist 11y ago
    Eh, yes. But at this point it had a gigantic following and was no longer considered to be in "beta". That said, if you had HL1, you could still download it for free, whereas if you did not and you just wanted CS, you could buy CS. There is a distinct difference. As far as donations, there is no way you can assume that. Sure, a vast majority won't pay, but I'm sure there are those out there who are generous enough to throw a dollar or two out there to support the modder. Shit, it works for server admins. Edit: Donations also work for people who contribute nothing and just stream themselves playing games. Some do very well, so I would venture a guess and say a modder putting out quality content could gather a few bucks.
  - schwap 11y ago
    That's not really comparable, they sold a version of Counterstrike that did not require a copy of Half-Life to play, so at that point it wasn't really a "mod" any more.
kedean 11y ago
The core of the issue came down to the effects on the modder community. 1. Modders are hobbyists, not professionals. Many modders came right out and said they would no longer make mods under this system, because the pressure to charge means it becomes a job. They no longer would have the option to just walk away from the mod. 2. Piracy. Modders have explicitly made their mods available for free. Once you have a system where they can be charged for, you have freeloaders putting someone elses mods on steam to make money. Steam provided no protection against this, the only resolution would be filing an individual complaint or invoking DMCA, and Steam was leaving that entirely up to the mod owners to figure out. 3. This was seen as a hostile move towards Nexus, the biggest provider of mods for the games in question. As soon as this was announced, mod makers began removing their products from Nexus out of concern that they would be dishonestly put on the Steam store. As Nexus is an ad-supported service, fewer mods means less income, and it would not be due to a capitalistic business reason. In the end, most modders don't WANT to be paid for their mods, because it's not a profession. I saw plenty of support for a donation system, however.
- AndrewDucker 11y ago
  But the reason it's not a profession is that it's currently not possible to be paid for it. Make that possible and you'd then have some professional modders and some amateur ones.
  - bamie9l 11y ago
    In this case I believe that allocating a dollar value to work done for the love of it, significantly devalues that work in the eyes of its creator.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - mhomde 11y ago
      Yeah, this is like the chapter out of "Drive" where they tried paying people to give blood but ending up decreasing the number of blood givers... they'd rather feel charitable then earn money
carlmcqueen 11y ago
I think people are used to the apple cut when thinking about the 70% and getting angry, rather than using an already marketed brand to start with, no starting in obscurity. What I was more concered about was the 'quicksilver' effect. When apple hired the dev who made the tool, it just stopped getting updated. Everytime a game was patched or updated, what % of the mods would then become unusable, despite paying for it? Can't complain when it's free, but if you paid for the mod is there an expectation of it being working for a period of time? What was that period of time?
michaelt 11y ago
As I understand it the games industry has made some "innovations" since I was a gamer back in the 1990s - such as pre-orders, paid early access, DLC, micropayments, retailer-exclusive content, Google Play and Apple App Store, releases of buggy and untested games that just plain won't run, extensive DRM and so on. Many gamers feel [1] where in the past you paid $a for a complete game, today you pay $a for a fraction of the game then an extra $b and $c and $d and $e through these extra mechanisms. I suspect some people saw the 75% profit margin, and felt this was more about adding on $f, a new mechanism to transfer yet more money from gamers to big publishers, rather than anything to do with rewarding mod creators. [1] http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/743258-video-game-logic http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/743258-video-game-logic
gibsonje 11y ago
There's a lot of other context to the issue. -Mods that depend on other mods -Mod dependencies being removed from Nexus and changed to paid mods on Steam -Mods stealing work from other mods If you read Gabe's responses he starts poking at the "Wow wow wow, why is this bad?" and learns a few things.
darkmighty 11y ago
Yes, they are. For example, extend your percentage to 1% instead of 25%. Then it becomes obvious you would be just putting a burden on consumers with actual moders profiting only marginally, and the activity as a whole will tend to decline, since it'1) less attractive as an economical activity, 2) less attractive a hobby, since that might be seen as a low paying job instead, and 3) less attractive for consumers given poor/scant products. The 25% is a milder version of this effect, but I don't find it hard to see why people were upset. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking It also appears to have created quite a feud among moders which were or weren't going to charge for their work, since some mods are quite intertwined. So it was a combination of effects. I do think the basic idea is worth of discussion, but it's certainly debatable if anything other than pay-what-you-want actually fosters the moding community.

by ux-app 11y ago

lsaferite 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
  I'd say the person who can rightfully make that argument is the person choosing to sell or not sell their content.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y 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 11y 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.
grogen 11y ago
Fair distribution is one of the situations in which rationality breaks down. See the ultimatum game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
Already__Taken 11y ago
It's also a sting as others have mentions because the customer already must have bought 100% of something to get assets the will use. The publisher skimming 75% off 100% of the value that modders created for free seems a bit shitty. Especially when there's still no requirement for the original developer to have made the modders lives any easier to get this benefit.

smackfu 11y ago

That seems like an argument that any percentage is fine as long as it's above zero. But certainly people can debate over what a fair percentage is.

TheHypnotist 11y ago

People are in favor of offering donations and having the modder get the full donation, not being asked to pay for added content. This includes full-fledged mods to a single weapon skin. To make things worse, it seemed that the store became flooded with half-assed content as a means for modders to make a quick buck. Furthermore, some mods required other mods, if the mods that were required started to charge, it became EXTREMELY prohibitive to piggyback. Most gamers are aware of how Valve became so big and it's through the modding community in HL1 and eventually HL2. Can you imagine how prohibitive it would have been for Counter-Strike to grow if they charged $10 for the mod (obviously when it was till a mod =< v1.6)? On top of that, some mods were genuine improvements over the original. For instance, there is a huge Skyrim UI mod that is a vast improvement over the vanilla. Some people were actually afraid that game companies would use this pay for mod system as a way to double dip. "Let's release a half-assed UI, let some modder charge for his better UI and take 45-50% of his sales."

emodendroket 11y ago
They sold Counterstrike as a retail release when it was still a mod. The donation stuff is a sure way to make sure almost no one ever even considers paying.
- TheHypnotist 11y ago
  Eh, yes. But at this point it had a gigantic following and was no longer considered to be in "beta". That said, if you had HL1, you could still download it for free, whereas if you did not and you just wanted CS, you could buy CS. There is a distinct difference. As far as donations, there is no way you can assume that. Sure, a vast majority won't pay, but I'm sure there are those out there who are generous enough to throw a dollar or two out there to support the modder. Shit, it works for server admins. Edit: Donations also work for people who contribute nothing and just stream themselves playing games. Some do very well, so I would venture a guess and say a modder putting out quality content could gather a few bucks.
- schwap 11y ago
  That's not really comparable, they sold a version of Counterstrike that did not require a copy of Half-Life to play, so at that point it wasn't really a "mod" any more.

kedean 11y ago

The core of the issue came down to the effects on the modder community. 1. Modders are hobbyists, not professionals. Many modders came right out and said they would no longer make mods under this system, because the pressure to charge means it becomes a job. They no longer would have the option to just walk away from the mod. 2. Piracy. Modders have explicitly made their mods available for free. Once you have a system where they can be charged for, you have freeloaders putting someone elses mods on steam to make money. Steam provided no protection against this, the only resolution would be filing an individual complaint or invoking DMCA, and Steam was leaving that entirely up to the mod owners to figure out. 3. This was seen as a hostile move towards Nexus, the biggest provider of mods for the games in question. As soon as this was announced, mod makers began removing their products from Nexus out of concern that they would be dishonestly put on the Steam store. As Nexus is an ad-supported service, fewer mods means less income, and it would not be due to a capitalistic business reason. In the end, most modders don't WANT to be paid for their mods, because it's not a profession. I saw plenty of support for a donation system, however.

AndrewDucker 11y ago
But the reason it's not a profession is that it's currently not possible to be paid for it. Make that possible and you'd then have some professional modders and some amateur ones.
- bamie9l 11y ago
  In this case I believe that allocating a dollar value to work done for the love of it, significantly devalues that work in the eyes of its creator.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mhomde 11y ago
    Yeah, this is like the chapter out of "Drive" where they tried paying people to give blood but ending up decreasing the number of blood givers... they'd rather feel charitable then earn money

carlmcqueen 11y ago

I think people are used to the apple cut when thinking about the 70% and getting angry, rather than using an already marketed brand to start with, no starting in obscurity. What I was more concered about was the 'quicksilver' effect. When apple hired the dev who made the tool, it just stopped getting updated. Everytime a game was patched or updated, what % of the mods would then become unusable, despite paying for it? Can't complain when it's free, but if you paid for the mod is there an expectation of it being working for a period of time? What was that period of time?

michaelt 11y ago

As I understand it the games industry has made some "innovations" since I was a gamer back in the 1990s - such as pre-orders, paid early access, DLC, micropayments, retailer-exclusive content, Google Play and Apple App Store, releases of buggy and untested games that just plain won't run, extensive DRM and so on. Many gamers feel [1] where in the past you paid $a for a complete game, today you pay $a for a fraction of the game then an extra $b and $c and $d and $e through these extra mechanisms. I suspect some people saw the 75% profit margin, and felt this was more about adding on $f, a new mechanism to transfer yet more money from gamers to big publishers, rather than anything to do with rewarding mod creators. [1] http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/743258-video-game-logic http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/743258-video-game-logic

gibsonje 11y ago

There's a lot of other context to the issue. -Mods that depend on other mods -Mod dependencies being removed from Nexus and changed to paid mods on Steam -Mods stealing work from other mods If you read Gabe's responses he starts poking at the "Wow wow wow, why is this bad?" and learns a few things.

darkmighty 11y ago

Yes, they are. For example, extend your percentage to 1% instead of 25%. Then it becomes obvious you would be just putting a burden on consumers with actual moders profiting only marginally, and the activity as a whole will tend to decline, since it'1) less attractive as an economical activity, 2) less attractive a hobby, since that might be seen as a low paying job instead, and 3) less attractive for consumers given poor/scant products. The 25% is a milder version of this effect, but I don't find it hard to see why people were upset. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking It also appears to have created quite a feud among moders which were or weren't going to charge for their work, since some mods are quite intertwined. So it was a combination of effects. I do think the basic idea is worth of discussion, but it's certainly debatable if anything other than pay-what-you-want actually fosters the moding community.