Steam Allows Paid Mods

[Ripe]

This is a quite hard subject. I think that modders have all rights to charge for mods if they have permission of the original contents owner (in this case, developers).

However, I can already see flow of bad, barely functional mods. But honestly, is that anything new? Steam doesn't have any kind of quality control before the product has been released and what kind of games are there because of that?

[Nepenthe]

Despite quality control being simultaneously important and yet nearly absent on Steam, what is the amount of shit that's been successful on the platform either initially or over the long term? And not stuff like Surgeon Simulator or Goat Simulator which seem to have been made and enjoyed in an ironic sense; I'm talking about the absolute unplayable and misleading filth that Jim Sterling actively warns people about. Because if no one's actually spending money on this stuff, it's about as much of a problem as if it didn't actually exist at all.

 

Note that I'm not against quality control; I think if Valve cared and had ways of cleaning up the store and removing horrid titles, literally everyone- Valve, the devs, and the consumers- would be better off. My question is just mainly: what is the actual pragmatic risk of people getting suckered into buying bad games without recourse, and should we as Steam users actively worry about this as a real threat or not in regards to this new decision? I mean, when I do go to Steam it's almost always to see if anything on my wishlist is on sale, not to trawl through the store for anything and everything to buy. Even if I do go through the store pages, my critical eye stays with me, and if something doesn't have a 90% user rating minimum then it's automatically written off, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly savvy consumer.

[Sami]

That's not keeping me from selling it though.

 

My point was that I wonder if Valve is going to establish some sort of standard when it comes down to what kind of mods can and cannot be sold to other users.

 

Although I don't get my mods off of the steam workshop, in a way I'm kinda glad Valve decided to go through with this. It will be interesting to see how this concept unfurls within the modding community in the future.

 

User ratings and reviews are really all they need as far as quality control goes. Plus a report system for shit that breaks the game.

[Solkia]

lol steam doesn't care about user reports

[Sami]

lol steam doesn't care about user reports

 

Yeah for all the love Valve seems to get they're really not that consumer friendly. The sales are literally the only positive thing I can think of.

[Lisbon]

Yeahh, Steam won't give two shits about user reports. Their customer complaint system is useless and entirely automated, if memory serves me correctly. Given it's operating kind of Laissez-Faire with minimal interaction from non-customers as is with Steam's lackluster customer service, quality control will fall entirely on user reviews. 

[Clewis]

Unless your concern is "could someone just upload the whole of Skyrim with one tiny change and call it a mod, then people will just download that mod instead of buying the game" I imagine there is no way to "launch" mods that you don't own the game for.

 

I guess I worded that badly.

 

Let's say I make a simple mod in which the only function is that it allows your footprints to remain in the snow while you're walking around. Would the functionality of this mod be complex enough that I could sell it on the workshop? If a developer refuses to fix an annoying glitch found in one of their games, would I be allowed to sell a patch for it on the workshop?

 

What I'm wondering is if Valve will uphold some sort of criteria that needs to be met when it comes to the complexity of the mod you're trying to sell. Should I be allowed to sell a mod that is essentially a few lines of code being added to the game?

 

The more I think about it, the more interested I am in seeing how Valve will approach these types of hypothetical situations when they occur.

[JezMM]

I guess I worded that badly.

 

Let's say I make a simple mod in which the only function is that it allows your footprints to remain in the snow while you're walking around. Would the functionality of this mod be complex enough that I could sell it on the workshop? If a developer refuses to fix an annoying glitch found in one of their games, would I be allowed to sell a patch for it on the workshop?

 

What I'm wondering is if Valve will uphold some sort of criteria that needs to be met when it comes to the complexity of the mod you're trying to sell. Should I be allowed to sell a mod that is essentially a few lines of code being added to the game?

 

The more I think about it, the more interested I am in seeing how Valve will approach these types of hypothetical situations when they occur.

 

The footprints one seems fine, of course it might not get anywhere though if people aren't willing to pay for footsteps in the snow.

 

Game fix one is more iffy, I'm curious about that scenario too.  I guess in a sense it could actually be a bad thing.  Consider the scenario where a jerk-ish developer allows a paid-for fix mod to stay up and yet never patches the game to include the fix themselves and never comments on any of it.  The reason?  People are eventually giving in and paying to get that mod because it's so useful, and the developers are getting a little cut of that profit each time.  A very dodgy situation indeed - hopefully the bad rep the developer would get after people realise this would be enough to keep them from doing it.

[Solkia]

The fact that we're even talking about fixes like their normal disturbs me.

 

IT shouldn't be up to modders to make a game functional, developers need to stop treating PC as a game platform like a fucking sin. 

[SenEDDtor Missile]

How is this going to affect existing mods?

[Autosaver]

How is this going to affect existing mods?

A lot of them are being taken down and being put up on the new system with the ability to purchase them.

[Candescence]

The fact that we're even talking about fixes like their normal disturbs me.

 

IT shouldn't be up to modders to make a game functional, developers need to stop treating PC as a game platform like a fucking sin. 

 

Though, in this case, Skyrim is buggy as shit on all platforms, not just PC. Bethesda has a horrible track record for this, really. It's gotten to the point where you have to jump through several hoops so mods don't crash the game, no matter what you're using.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

A lot of them are being taken down and being put up on the new system with the ability to purchase them.

I kinda figured that, but what about the ones that are already downloaded and used by someone?

[Tornado]

So what exactly is keeping me from changing up a few lines of the game's code and selling it off as a gameplay mod.

 

Intellectual copyright laws. You start dicking around with stuff like your example, or anything where what you're offering is clearly built off of someone else's work, and you're liable to get sued before you get a payday.

[Clewis]

Intellectual copyright laws. You start dicking around with stuff like your example, or anything where what you're offering is clearly built off of someone else's work, and you're liable to get sued before you get a payday.

 

That example was badly worded. I didn't mean to imply that someone could just sell the entire source code of a game with a few alterations here and there as a mod, instead I was wondering if one could sell a mod that barely adds a few lines of code to the game itself (i.e. something that alters a simple value within the source code somewhere, a patch that fixes a small glitch, etc.) like I explained in a later post.

 

Which, after thinking about it, I guess there's nothing really stopping you from doing so. If anything I'm more interested in seeing if Valve has anything to say about these types of mods being monetized.

 

Valve taking 75% of the profit a mod makes is still bullshit, however.

[Moppsy]

What I'm worried about is the reverse pirating of mods from Nexus to workshop without the Nexus author's permission.  Steam Workshop has a DMCA option but that seems to only be for the Steam workshop mod uploaders.  A lot of modders are hiding their mods on Nexus out of fear people are taking their content and making a buck off of it.

[Vec]

And just in time for the release of GTA V for PC...well...more like a few days later...but you know what I mean

[Moppsy]

So Gabe himself is stepping in and is taking a lot of heat on reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/

[Vec]

-Reads comments in Reddit post

-$100 for horse genitalia mod

Nop...that's it. This is the worst idea since Xbox One DRM system

[Lisbon]

So Gabe himself is stepping in and is taking a lot of heat on reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/

Just to add on to this, if anyone wants to see Newell's posts, you'll have to check out his profile. They're getting downvoted to hell and back. He is responding, though.

 

---

 

I'm glad people are shifting attention to Valve about this, honestly. A lot of people I know instantly tried to jump on the "blame Bethesda" wagon once it was revealed they were getting a 45% cut as opposed to Valve's 30% cut. I didn't like that, because it's modifications of Bethesda's original creation that's being sold for money here. I do think they deserve a cut of the profit because of that reason alone - not 45%, but yes, I think they should get some kickback from it.

 

Thing is, though, Valve doesn't do jack shit other than host the items being sold. The only thing they contributed to the game itself other than hosting the site that it's being sold on is the DRM it uses. They take a gargantuan profit - 30% - of each mod sold, yet they don't do very much to contribute. I know that not expecting them to take a cut is unrealistic, but 30% is too big a cut for the work they put into it.

Furthermore, Valve is the one who is trying to spread this to all over their site - I don't think Bethesda really gives a damn about anything other than their own games and the profit they make off of it. If/when people start selling mods for games with huge modding communities like Civ V and Mount & Blade: Warband, Bethesda won't be making any money. Why would they care? They're not responsible for the attempt to spread it, all they're doing is taking a cut off of profit being made from altercations of their IP. That's understandable, honestly.

 

I think a donation system would work best, because there's mods I've spent hours upon hours using and I would love to reward the people who created them for their hard work. Gekokujo for Mount & Blade: Warband is one of the most insanely detailed mods I've ever seen - it not only completely changes the game itself, but it increases map size by nearly 50% and adds a whole bunch of new options for the game itself that isn't in the vanilla version. The people who made it haven't earned a cent from it, outside of donations, I'm guessing, given the popularity of the mod and all. I would love to donate to those people.

 

Playing a pivotal role in turning mods into nothing more than DLC and then taking nearly 1/3 of the profit made from the work of others deserves a load of criticism, though. I'm glad people are coming down hard on Gabe in that thread - not because I dislike the guy or even because I'm angry at him, but because this is one of those situations where people need to speak loud and clear about the way things are being handled to make a difference. They're directing it at the right people, finally.

 

---

 

Anyway, anyone else who is against this should check out this petition I found. Needs moar signatures

[Solkia]

I've read through some of Gabe's replies. Right or wrong he's been acting like an idiot about this whole thing.

 

EDIT: even though it's obvious I'm talking about Gabe Newell, I feel I should mention I'm not calling SSMB user Gabe an idiot

[Autosaver]

 

The golden age of gaming - where the game pauses and spams pop ups!

[KHCast]

Anyone know if the Sega will be using this? Cause I wonder if popular Generations mods will now be priced.

[Solly]

Anyone know if the Sega will be using this? Cause I wonder if popular Generations mods will now be priced.

No. Why would they?

 

Sonic Generations doesn't have official mod support on the Steam Workshop. This isn't going to affect games like GTA or Sonic, or Dark Souls, or whatever. 

 

I'm willing to bet most games that are on the Workshop won't support this, either. 

[Tani Coyote]

You have the right to be paid for any work you do, if you so choose.

Some people will release mods for free, some will release mods for pay. And the best part is there's a refund period, so the issue with crappy mods is unfounded.

Sounds like the best of both worlds. Someone who makes a kickass mod is unreasonable for wanting to make some pay for it?

Let the market decide, not romanticism about what the ideal video game should be. Video games are ultimately an industry, and all the other things that are critiqued - microtransactions, free to play, the move to mobile, etc. - are products of this.

"X should be for the art and not the money" is a good ideology, but it also falls flat when faced with reality. Would you go up to every artist, singer, musician, actor, etc. and tell them they should do it for free? I'd hope not. Art is good in and of itself, but there's no shame in trying to make a living off of it. Especially if you're good at it.

Consider copyright laws, patents, etc. We may hate the legal monopoly these give companies for a time being, but that monopoly encourages innovation of products. How many drugs would be developed if you couldn't monopolize it for a few years to recoup research costs and make a profit? Probably not many.

Valve should definitely not be taking that much of a cut, though. Sure, they give exposure... but Amazon takes 15% and eBay 13% for exposure on their sites. Valve should take a similar cut and give more to the modders.