Advertisement

Steam's compensated modding policy

Started by April 24, 2015 03:04 PM
84 comments, last by Gian-Reto 9 years, 6 months ago

Ya, if windows was broken on my laptop I wouldn't complain to Dell, HP or whatever manufacturer. Why would I? They didn't make Windows. I would obviously go to Microsoft for support. Pretty strange analogy to throw out but also did nothing to sway me in that specific point. If a mod breaks, valve have nothing to do with that and I don't see why complaining to them should be an option.

They sold you it. It's their problem. At least in UK, maybe all of EU.

Of course it gets muddy as f*ck with software, especially if it's not on tangible medium but digitally delivered but still, in principle, the seller is responsible.

Well that's not how I see it. If something is broken, I go to the person who made it and who might be able to fix it. So let's go with your rationale and make another loose analogy that doesn't really fit.

I buy a game in Gamestop and I'm having fun with it. Then a patch gets released, I install it and it corrupts my save. I should now go to Gamestop and ask them to fix this?? That does not make logical sense to me. Similarly for the windows scenario and similarly for the mod. Why would valve know why something is breaking your game/mod. They may not even know what the game/mod is. The developer maybe, but valve have no part to play in fixing it,

So basically I can be sold a f*cking virus via Steam at this point and according to some people here it's not Valve's fault in the least because they can only facilitate money exchange and copy/paste product description text and screens verbatim as given by the developer, while not checking if it's factually accurate at all.

How can you say with a straight face even (because it's what you are saying): "it's not Valve's fault you can get scammed in Valve's shop and have Valve charge your CC and give 70% to scammer and 30% to themselves and offer you no refund".

We are talking about faulty merchandise being sold as one of full value.

It's not legal (in some, maybe all EU states) to not give a refund, replacement or fix if you are a seller selling faulty merchandise without informing the buyers about the defects.

Valve is doing all kinds of legal f*ckery and creative wording and creative accounting to get around being responsible for anything at all.

They already got text in place that makes you waive the 14 day return law of EU, which is.. understandable actually because it requires no reason for a return.

But it's not understandable at all and should not be legal to make you waive the rights to refund of a faulty product, plain no.

Real life shops can't do that but Valve can... apparently software if not merchandise after all... but piracy is still theft of course!!

And all this is why I hope EC of EU would get on this someday, they fined Microsoft, they can fine comparatively smaller Valve.

As for your silly story - if patch is paid for then it's the seller who you bought it from who is responsible, they promised you a working DLC. If it's a free patch - no idea, because software legal matters are such a clusterf*ck not even biggest corporations can sort it out, as evidenced by patent trolling and all the frivolous litigation between them.

If you really don't understand the simple concept of: "No, a seller can't take a faulty product that is advertised and packed as a working one and offer no refund or support when hidden issues about it come to light" then I can only hope one day you will be a victim of a scam and told to look for original maker who long ago took off to China with your money already. Maybe then you will understand why customer have the right to have the basic protection from scams instead of being told to look at the far end of the food chain and skip past every single retailer along the way that just profited off of them being scammed.

Advertisement

Well my response to that is quite simple. This is the first time (unless I missed it before) that you mentioned viruses and scams. I was under the impression that we were discussing a faulty product. A mod that didn't work correctly for example. That is completely different to a mod that is dangerous or malicious in some way. Of course you'll now say those are the same thing which I totally get, but in the context of the conversation I feel they have different impacts.

Also your aggression is really unnecessary. There really is no need to get worked up over this here. It's not going to do anything about it. Be proactive with your feelings.

This thread and modders themselves are literally only places I've seen that supports this idea* in its' current form.
* And by "idea" I don't mean paid mods, but this idiotic 0 support, 0 warranty, 0 guarantees, 0 anything system.


The problem is, people are using the current implementation of the idea to attack the idea itself.

The conversations are basically going like this:
"Paid mods will ruin modding for everyone!" -> How? -> "Well, in this specific case, the modder only gets 25% of the cut." -> Yes that revenue cut sucks - but that's this specific implementation which can be fixed and corrected, but paid mods in general is still an idea worth experimenting with -> "No, because there's no support! No refund if it breaks! No decent review system!" -> Again, these are implementation problems that can be fixed over time -> "No, because <another implementation complaint>!"

Let's not mix up a bad implementation with a (potentially) good idea. Implementations can be fixed, bad ideas cannot. People are claiming the idea is bad, and using the bad implementation as "proof".

Nobody in this thread is approving of "this idiotic 0 support, 0 warranty, 0 guarantees, 0 anything system" as you are accusing us. We're saying the idea might be good, and it's worth trying out. A proper trial will take several years. Calling a trial a failure after 3 days is shortsighted.

The first implementation of any idea - good or bad - is almost always low quality (look at the pre-iPod mp3 players, for example). People are (correctly) bashing the poor implementation as a way to try and (incorrectly) abort the idea mid-birth.

If the implementation is bad, create a protest with a list of the N things that Valve needs to fix. But using a bad implementation as an excuse to shoot down an idea you don't like is politician-level dishonesty.

I don't play many mods. I've played like three in the past five years. I don't make mods. I'm a neutral party looking at this, removed from most emotional investment. I'm not claiming Valve is benevolent. After I've already come to my own opinion and conclusions, I read this reddit post by the modder pulling out and I get the strong impression that he's making overly emotional decisions. After making firm commitments in one direction, when he sees public opinion going in a different direction, jumps ship and attacks the side he just left, and then starts making demands without considering the ramifications of the demands he's making! Do you realize he's demanding that Valve remove his mod not just so people can't buy it, but that he's demanding that they remove his mod from people who have already paid for it?

Even his thread title is a plea to emotions. "The experiment has failed" the title shouts. Oh really? After 24 hours? That's the crappiest experiment I've ever heard. Good thing he's not actually the one running the experiment. It's pretty funny, because he's actually one of the test subjects - and he's tapping on the glass where the doctors are behind and saying, "Hey doc, your experiment has failed!" - when the experiment is only 24 hours into a year long experiment.

Here's his actual statement, in his own words: "[Valve's lawyer states] that they will make the file visible only to currently paid users. I am beside myself with anger right now as they try to tell me what I can do with my own content." (bold emphasis is his own emphasis).

He's angry that Valve honors the purchase agreement he and Valve both made with customers, and he demands that Valve violates the agreement by undoing the purchases already made.

That's like Kellogg cereal demanding that Walmart kick down doors and take back boxes of Corn Flakes because Kellogg decided not to sell any more corn flakes. Kellogg can demand Walmart remove existing inventory from their shelves, but they cannot demand Walmart remove already-purchased cereal from consumer's homes. This modder, however, is "beside himself with anger" that Valve will only remove the mod from the shelves, and won't remove already purchased copies from existing customers. I definitely don't agree with his demands.

On the other side, I then read this post by the author of Nexus Mods, It is a well-thought out, well-reasoned explanation about why Nexus accepts donations through Valve, from modders who want to support Nexus Mods. It quotes actual emails, sets up the actual events, and provides insight into his actual view. Whether you agree with that view or not, it's clearly stated and sane. His mind is actually functioning properly.


People can hold different views. And some people are rationally opposed to this. But most of the internet response is "out of my mind/besides myself with anger/can't think straight" responses. Alot of the response seems to be people willing giving up rationality to continue enjoying an 'emotional high' feeling of outrage. Some people get pleasure from outrage, and so don't listen to reasonable statements.

Being worried is understandable. Being angry is natural (but not necessarily correct or good). Holding different views is important. But the amount of people willingly giving up rational thought is scary - in this, and many other controversies. It's not that people aren't thinking for themselves - it's that they are willingly choosing not to comprehend other people's thoughts in other to feed the pleasurable feeling that comes from indignation and outrage.

Some people have very valid concerns and are in their right mind and rational about it. Most are implementation concerns, but some have very legitimate concerns with the core idea itself. That's good! We need alternative views - we need Ian Malcolm reminders. But the real debate and rational discussion is getting buried under the screamfest that is internet outrage for the sake of outrage.

When that happens, unless people calm down and talk things through, the companies are likely to just press ahead doing potential damage, or cancel the experiment just because of the backlash instead of learning why it's not a good idea. For either side, a mob-pressure-induced decision is not the best long-term method to solving this debate.

I think that 25% is fair, considering that it is their IP, their tools, their distribution channel.

It is great that we can earn some money by creating mods for a game that we haven't developed ourselves, using the tools provided by the developers of that game and their intellectual property.

If we think that 25% sucks, then we could find another marketplace where they offer a larger cut.

Too many projects; too much time

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I think the biggest problem is suddenly forcing it on every already existing game existing games. Retroactive changes like these have a tendency to upset people.

The idea itself is excellent.. I can develop plugins for Visual Studio and charge for them, why not game mods?

At the extreme it's no different than developing a game that uses the graphics driver.

If they had just made it optional for developers on new titles (only) it would have been a whole different thing, and no one would've had the energy to be upset. It would start with a couple of new games that would become popular with modders with a dream to make money from it, which would make those games get better mods, and the $99 ingame cupcakes would be a funny joke instead of the general opinion of the entire system.

EDIT: Thought this had been applied to more games than it had.

Advertisement

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I think the biggest problem is suddenly forcing it on every already existing game

Did they actually do this? I was under the impression it was only Skyrim and existing developers will need to work with Valve to opt their existing titles in.

EDIT: Yeah, as far as I can tell this is not being forced on every existing game at all.


I was under the impression it was only Skyrim and existing developers will need to work with Valve to opt their existing titles in.

Ah, I got the impression it had been added to a lot more.

Skyrim is interesting though.. probably the best fit for the idea, as mods is probably the one reason people still play it.. but at the same time precisely what makes people upset after 5 years of free. I think it would have been better to start paid mods with a sequel instead... shouldn't have been to difficult to foresee people getting upset.

Then again I don't know how many actually complain compared to the total amount of players.

I think that 25% is fair,
Its 25% for the mod's author, 40% for Bethesda and 35% for Valve. From that 35% Valve gets, 5% can be distributed to "service providers" the mod's author think they helped to create the mod (think NifScope for models, SKSE for scripts, NexusMods for the community, etc).

The mod's author can select from a list which "service providers" they think helped to create the mod in any way and they get a cut of the sales, "service providers" don't need to do anything else.

It seems like a fair deal. And that 5% Valve gives out from their cut is a very friendly gesture.

"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator

People are what people are - they'll get upset no matter what.

People who complain -> people who care.

And the more they care, the louder they shout..

After 5 years of free, we will have free mods and paid mods. Finally, I can pay my favorite mod authors conviniently - instead of using 'buy me a beer', 'tip-jar' and Paypal donate buttons.

I also like the 'pay what you want' option.

Nice. Really nice.

Would probably mean that more mods actually get updated, instead of just abandoned after barely getting finished.

Too many projects; too much time

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement