6 ms·

I don't really get why giving only 25%? I mean, as a service I don't see any high cost to justify a 75% retain fee. The idea was definitely great, but executio

by bontoJR 11y ago

I don't really get why giving only 25%? I mean, as a service I don't see any high cost to justify a 75% retain fee. The idea was definitely great, but execution was very poor. I would have been furious with them if I was a modder investing time and, sometimes, money to only get 25% on the price I was deciding for my mod. This was a huge failure at so many levels... I hope they learned from this lesson.

clinth 11y ago
> I don't really get why giving only 25%? Valve took their ~30% platform charge, and left the remaining amount to be split per the discretion of the publisher of the game, in this case Bethesda. Bethesda chose to give mod makers roughly 1/3 of the money left, resulting in a final split of Valve 30 / Bethesda 45 / mod author 25.
- bontoJR 11y ago
  It was more a financial question honestly, I know the split was btw Bethesda and Valve, but I can't justify why a 75% should go to Valve and Bethesda. That's the key point, I can understand the 30% of Valve, it's actually a samilar rate of other stores/platforms, but what's the financial necessity of the publisher? I mean, the game has been already released, it's making money and mods are usually a very high sales pusher (if well made, e.g. Counterstrike for Half Life). Why keeping 45%? I can't see any financial justification for such a higher rate, I would understand a 10%, max 15%, but no more.
  - Alphasite_ 11y ago
    Valve provides hosting, advertising, support, billing etc. Bathesda is essentially providing licensing for the ip and taking a risk they you mod won't harm their product or users, also a little bit of plain old capitalism. Frankly I'm okay with this, it creates a monetary incentive for publishers to create modding Apis etc which can only help in the long run.
- masklinn 11y ago
  Ah that explains the 25%, I saw references to it but had no idea how that had come to be. So Valve's base offer was a standard 30/70 cut, the issue is the game publisher got to decide of the split for the 70%, and Bethesda decided they deserved the vast majority of it.
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  Honest question- why should Bethesda get any money from mod sales? You need to have purchased the game to use the mod, and mods add something to the game experience that Bethesda didn't have to pay for themselves.
  - probablyfiction 11y ago
    Because modders are using Bethesda's copyrighted intellectual property as the base for their mods. Bethesda deserves a cut because it's their IP.
    - speeder 11y ago
      Still, Bethesda is notoriously greedy... I think many people still remember their Horse Armour DLC.
      - nazgob 11y ago
        This silly item kickstarted whole DLC market. I'm not saying its a good or bad thing but its a very big market now.
    - stevejones 11y ago
      They already got their cut for the use of their IP.
    - LMAlVvQjSGj 11y ago
      How are all mods using Bethesda IP? Surely one could make a simple sphere, import it to the game (and any other game) and call it a mod.
      - donatj 11y ago
        It's the same as making a remix of a song. The base of your new version is still the original authors work, so the author deserves a cut. A mod is akin to a remix of the game, and that remix is still mostly Bethesda assets, not to mention running atop their engine.
swalsh 11y ago
I can see why Valve deserves a cut, as distributor there are costs associated (though probably not anywhere near 75%). However I don't see why I need to give Bethesda a cut simply because it runs on their platform. If I develop a Windows application, I don't owe any money to Microsoft. If I make a cocoa app I don't owe money to Apple, There's countless examples of people writing software that runs on top of other peoples copyrighted software. I don't think you can make an argument that it makes your work a derivative work. It's pure crazy to think that I would have to give a substantial cut of my revenues for that "privilege".
- pliny 11y ago
  In a free market you rarely have to justify rent seeking. If Bethesda are 'rational' then they estimated how much they'd make at various royalties and decided that they make the most when they take ~45%, so 'deserves' never entered into their decision and it's reasonable to assume that it never entered into Valve's decision to take 30% either.
- eli 11y ago
  There's no rule that says what you charge people for a product or service has to be commensurate with your costs.
JibberMeTimbers 11y ago
The game publisher, Bethesda, determined that amount. I think everyone would agree it's steep but that's what the games publisher wanted. If they rolled out these mods for different games, those publishers could choose a different percentage for splitting it.

by bontoJR 11y ago

clinth 11y ago

> I don't really get why giving only 25%? Valve took their ~30% platform charge, and left the remaining amount to be split per the discretion of the publisher of the game, in this case Bethesda. Bethesda chose to give mod makers roughly 1/3 of the money left, resulting in a final split of Valve 30 / Bethesda 45 / mod author 25.

bontoJR 11y ago
It was more a financial question honestly, I know the split was btw Bethesda and Valve, but I can't justify why a 75% should go to Valve and Bethesda. That's the key point, I can understand the 30% of Valve, it's actually a samilar rate of other stores/platforms, but what's the financial necessity of the publisher? I mean, the game has been already released, it's making money and mods are usually a very high sales pusher (if well made, e.g. Counterstrike for Half Life). Why keeping 45%? I can't see any financial justification for such a higher rate, I would understand a 10%, max 15%, but no more.
- Alphasite_ 11y ago
  Valve provides hosting, advertising, support, billing etc. Bathesda is essentially providing licensing for the ip and taking a risk they you mod won't harm their product or users, also a little bit of plain old capitalism. Frankly I'm okay with this, it creates a monetary incentive for publishers to create modding Apis etc which can only help in the long run.
masklinn 11y ago
Ah that explains the 25%, I saw references to it but had no idea how that had come to be. So Valve's base offer was a standard 30/70 cut, the issue is the game publisher got to decide of the split for the 70%, and Bethesda decided they deserved the vast majority of it.
ohitsdom 11y ago
Honest question- why should Bethesda get any money from mod sales? You need to have purchased the game to use the mod, and mods add something to the game experience that Bethesda didn't have to pay for themselves.
- probablyfiction 11y ago
  Because modders are using Bethesda's copyrighted intellectual property as the base for their mods. Bethesda deserves a cut because it's their IP.
  - speeder 11y ago
    Still, Bethesda is notoriously greedy... I think many people still remember their Horse Armour DLC.
    - nazgob 11y ago
      This silly item kickstarted whole DLC market. I'm not saying its a good or bad thing but its a very big market now.
  - stevejones 11y ago
    They already got their cut for the use of their IP.
  - LMAlVvQjSGj 11y ago
    How are all mods using Bethesda IP? Surely one could make a simple sphere, import it to the game (and any other game) and call it a mod.
    - donatj 11y ago
      It's the same as making a remix of a song. The base of your new version is still the original authors work, so the author deserves a cut. A mod is akin to a remix of the game, and that remix is still mostly Bethesda assets, not to mention running atop their engine.

swalsh 11y ago

I can see why Valve deserves a cut, as distributor there are costs associated (though probably not anywhere near 75%). However I don't see why I need to give Bethesda a cut simply because it runs on their platform. If I develop a Windows application, I don't owe any money to Microsoft. If I make a cocoa app I don't owe money to Apple, There's countless examples of people writing software that runs on top of other peoples copyrighted software. I don't think you can make an argument that it makes your work a derivative work. It's pure crazy to think that I would have to give a substantial cut of my revenues for that "privilege".

pliny 11y ago
In a free market you rarely have to justify rent seeking. If Bethesda are 'rational' then they estimated how much they'd make at various royalties and decided that they make the most when they take ~45%, so 'deserves' never entered into their decision and it's reasonable to assume that it never entered into Valve's decision to take 30% either.
eli 11y ago
There's no rule that says what you charge people for a product or service has to be commensurate with your costs.

JibberMeTimbers 11y ago

The game publisher, Bethesda, determined that amount. I think everyone would agree it's steep but that's what the games publisher wanted. If they rolled out these mods for different games, those publishers could choose a different percentage for splitting it.