bbgunshot
Well-Known Member
http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-has-removed-paid-mods-functionality-from-steam-workshop/
Well that was much more short-lived than I had expected. Usually Valve's policy is ignore a raging community until it can't be controlled anymore then address the problem. It seems like Valve and Bethesda bit the bullet quickly and cut their losses. I would like this thread to be a discussion of the ideas and opinions that surrounded this idea initially, Valve's original implementation of the system, and what clear positives and negatives it may have had.
Personally, I am of the opinion that modders can do some very impressive things. Create expansions, and even create entire games based around what may have started originally as a small modification to a videogame. Do I believe that modders should be compensated for their work? Possibly. However, the way in which Valve and Bethesda chose to implement this system was the biggest cash grab I have seen since EA. Valve (and Bethesda) would take 75% of the total profits on ALL mods and the modders wouldn't get paid until the MODDER had made more than $100 off of the mod. If I am correct, that means a mod would have to make $400 in addition to taxes and fees for a modder to get ANY money back. Not to mention the obvious content stealing, copyright issues, mod piracy, and Nexus mod ripping that took place.
Many people advocated, and still do advocate for a donation OPTION to be added to mods that we enjoy. However, I have also heard of the incredibly small amount of money that has ever been donated to modders with their own website and donate page. I can totally see adding a donation option more as a attractive solution than something that actually benefits the modders. But, you must also take into account that the nature and success of steam came from is simplicity and accessibility. This is WHY PC gamers are willing to pay money for games and not pirate them anymore, the idea simply is not attractive. Having the donation option added would give people a safe, easy, and attractive outlet to dump some extra steam wallet into a mod that they enjoyed.
Another solution that I found interesting would be a subscription option. There is a price available for someone to subscribe to a paid workshop page for a certain game, and download as many mods as they would like. The most popular mods would be compensated more than the less popular mods, and this would create healthy competition among the modding community, and encourage large projects.
The issues with the ideas above is that neither Valve or Bethesda were interested in ACTUALLY helping the modding community like they advertised. Every comment from the both of them is a backhanded "We did nothing wrong, but you get your way" because they hid behind this shield like they were helping the modding community. They were taking 75% of the profits, did not regulate or even ATTEMPT to regulate the paid mods, and did this without any warning or reason. They were certainly keen to explain their reasoning after the controversy, but beforehand they just wanted to see if they could get away with it.
These are some quickly written feelings and ideas I have surrounding this whole fiasco. I'm curious what others might think. Feel free to discuss further!
Well that was much more short-lived than I had expected. Usually Valve's policy is ignore a raging community until it can't be controlled anymore then address the problem. It seems like Valve and Bethesda bit the bullet quickly and cut their losses. I would like this thread to be a discussion of the ideas and opinions that surrounded this idea initially, Valve's original implementation of the system, and what clear positives and negatives it may have had.
Personally, I am of the opinion that modders can do some very impressive things. Create expansions, and even create entire games based around what may have started originally as a small modification to a videogame. Do I believe that modders should be compensated for their work? Possibly. However, the way in which Valve and Bethesda chose to implement this system was the biggest cash grab I have seen since EA. Valve (and Bethesda) would take 75% of the total profits on ALL mods and the modders wouldn't get paid until the MODDER had made more than $100 off of the mod. If I am correct, that means a mod would have to make $400 in addition to taxes and fees for a modder to get ANY money back. Not to mention the obvious content stealing, copyright issues, mod piracy, and Nexus mod ripping that took place.
Many people advocated, and still do advocate for a donation OPTION to be added to mods that we enjoy. However, I have also heard of the incredibly small amount of money that has ever been donated to modders with their own website and donate page. I can totally see adding a donation option more as a attractive solution than something that actually benefits the modders. But, you must also take into account that the nature and success of steam came from is simplicity and accessibility. This is WHY PC gamers are willing to pay money for games and not pirate them anymore, the idea simply is not attractive. Having the donation option added would give people a safe, easy, and attractive outlet to dump some extra steam wallet into a mod that they enjoyed.
Another solution that I found interesting would be a subscription option. There is a price available for someone to subscribe to a paid workshop page for a certain game, and download as many mods as they would like. The most popular mods would be compensated more than the less popular mods, and this would create healthy competition among the modding community, and encourage large projects.
The issues with the ideas above is that neither Valve or Bethesda were interested in ACTUALLY helping the modding community like they advertised. Every comment from the both of them is a backhanded "We did nothing wrong, but you get your way" because they hid behind this shield like they were helping the modding community. They were taking 75% of the profits, did not regulate or even ATTEMPT to regulate the paid mods, and did this without any warning or reason. They were certainly keen to explain their reasoning after the controversy, but beforehand they just wanted to see if they could get away with it.
These are some quickly written feelings and ideas I have surrounding this whole fiasco. I'm curious what others might think. Feel free to discuss further!
Last edited: