Live data from Hacker News

Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

bbc.co.uk

61–70 of 282 posts

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#61
So, I was personally involved in a HL mod called The Opera, which for some of you who may vaguely remember, is a mod based on the high action shoot 'em up films by John Woo, also known as the Hong Kong Blood Opera genre. The game was the first ever example of animated fabric(trenchcoats) in Half-Life, a tech that carried over to Action Half-Life.

At the time it was kind of a big deal, but I also remember another big deal during that time: when Valve bootstrapped Steam and forced everyone to start picking up Counter-Strike updates through the software. Of course, mirrors were provided a few hours after the main release, but, Steam was the first place where the data was available.

This was a time when the main features of Steam were "preventing hacking" and providing a better CDN. The little known game Day of Defeat managed to be scooped up by Valve and the community couldn't wait to see what happened when Valve and the Steam platform supported a game out of the gate -- Team Fortress 2 looked a lot like Firearms mod with sentries, and the communities were on fire talking about Valve meddling with the mod community.

That time, a time I fondly remember growing up during, strikes me as strangely familiar when I look at the conversations around paid mods in Workshop. The funny thing is, though, every game has paid mods now in the form of DLC. The silly hat bullshit in TF2 should never generate real world dollars, this is the virtual equivalent of a mod that your buddy can see you activate. Content like new guns, maps, skins, models, etc used to exclusively come from the community, and infrequently in some "expansion pack" release from the game developers themselves. There's a different problem with game development companies and the incestious publisher relationship; but suffice it to say that the primary game publisher, at least (over) a decade ago when I was more involved with the community, was hugely flattered and took joy when their game was modded.

Not that running a mod team is easy, it's not. I remember distinctly when one of the main map builders for The Opera was hired by Raven. I remember too, when model and skin engineers spent hundreds of dollars on gun rentals and sound equipment to get the "bang" noise for each gun just right. I wish there was a kickass way to pay him on the spot for that kind of investment, but now there are so many "better" ways to run a grassroots development team (crowdfunding not the least among them) and if you actually kick ass and produce high quality game content, you'll just get a job in the industry like other people who kick ass at it. Or the community will bootstrap a development shop and you can try your hand at running a team "for real".

Instead of trying to open up a bespoke "skyrim mod" shop and peddle high resolution horse genitals for $3.99/testicle.

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#62
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understood that was a value set by Bethesda, not Valve.

Yes they wanted 45% so Valve slapped on another 30% while not providing any or minimal QA from Valve or Bethesda for that other 75%?. As with the Store or Greenlight before outsourcing tasks to the community (reviews/greenlight votes) doesn't mean Valve isn't responsible for the stuff they offer in their store. A 24h hour refund policy is simply laughable when non-waiveable EU consumer rights regulations require 14 d…

And don't forget they were trying to minimise the potential competition and challenge to their revenue streams that modding represents.

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#63
Paid mods are fine, they should have led from the back, not the front, somehow. The rates were bad, and the launch mods were just... crap useless crap.

The people leading the charge were useless idiots too, they are happy to pay for Skyrim and not for quality mods? There should be opportunity for content creators to contribute in a significant way and get paid to do it.

This is just awful execution of a good idea, with the wrong rates for authors and the delivery mechanism. It should have been 15% Bethedsa, 15% Valve, 70% Creator.

I lament.

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#64
I gathered my thoughts in a comment on the Bethesda blog post:

http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyr...

TL,DR: Bethesda doesn't deserve the 45% of the sale, specially when they are charging 60$ for the game. IMO, they deserve 0%, for they have created nothing (and were already paid for the game/tools). And mods had value to the game, and increase it's lifetime.

Two problems with paid mods:

1 - most modders are heavy modders (about a hundred mods at a time). Knowing that, I can see some players realizing they will spend more than 100$ in a game.

2 - This can becomes Bethesda's business model. It can lead to a Elder Scrolls 6 with lackluster content, waiting to be filled with (paid) mods.

I don't have a problem with paid mods. I just think Bethesda is getting greedy. Does adobe get a cut from Photoshop plugin sales? Does Unity get a cut from Unity developed games?

How to implement paid mods:

- Help modders choose a copyright license

- Help track/prevent copyright infrigement. Many mods use other mods or are "mod compilations". And track unauthorized mod uploads to the market.

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#65
post #32

Let's not underestimate what Valve has done here. At first they tried to give passionate content providers a way to also make some money. That's a huge thing. Most modders can tell you about it. Then they screwed up, which can happen if you try something the first time. I think it's okay, but I understand why people are pissed. Then the boss himself comes and talks to people on reddit to see what is going on. He gets…

At first they tried to give passionate content providers a way to also make some money. Given that the "passionate content providers" only make 25% of what users pay, I think that's a very generous interpretation. Edit: It doesn't matter if it's Valve or Bethesda or the tooth fairy that takes the remaining 75% - the fact is this system does little to accomplish the goal of "giving passionate content providers a way t…

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?

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#66

I think Valve/Steam (and Bethesda) really screwed up on this one. Although the idea of modders being fairly compensated for their work is a great idea the execution was poor at best. Only 25% going to the content creators? Really? And a poor returns mechanism, getting a refund gets you banned from the steam store for 7 days to stop abuse. That's a poor returns policy when you're buying things like mods that might be…

Bethesda introduced DLCs to the PC gaming world in 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion#...

  The first update came as a set of specialized armor for 
  Oblivion‍ '​s ridable horses; released on April 3, 2006. 
  Although gamers generally displayed enthusiasm for the 
  concept of micropayments for downloadable in-game content,
  many expressed their dissatisfaction at the price they 
  had to pay for the relatively minor horse-armor package 
  on the Internet and elsewhere.[85] Hines assured the 
  press that Bethesda was not going to respond rashly to 
  customer criticism.
Valve introduced DRM to the PC gaming world in late 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)#History

  Valve's Half-Life 2 was the first game to require 
  installation of the Steam client to play, even for retail 
  copies. This decision was met with concerns about 
  software ownership, software requirements, and issues 
  with overloaded servers demonstrated previously by the 
  Counter-Strike rollout. During this time users faced 
  multiple issues attempting to play the game.
There are alternatives like GoG, that are DRM/DLC-free.

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#67
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understood that was a value set by Bethesda, not Valve.

Yes they wanted 45% so Valve slapped on another 30% while not providing any or minimal QA from Valve or Bethesda for that other 75%?. As with the Store or Greenlight before outsourcing tasks to the community (reviews/greenlight votes) doesn't mean Valve isn't responsible for the stuff they offer in their store. A 24h hour refund policy is simply laughable when non-waiveable EU consumer rights regulations require 14 d…

> non-waiveable EU consumer rights regulations require 14 days

I don't think this is true in the case of purely digital products. As far as I am aware of the german implementation of this regulation it explicitly allows to waive the rights before the first download. Like many companies steam does this during checkout ("I agree..").

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#68
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understood that was a value set by Bethesda, not Valve.

The latest I've seen is that Valve gets 30%, then the publisher decides what the rest of the split looks like. If they had released the exact same system, but said the modders get 75%, I think this whole ordeal would have been avoided. It's interesting to me that it was apparently better to give modders nothing than to give them 25%.

> It's interesting to me that it was apparently better to give modders nothing than to give them 25%.

It's due to perceived "fairness"

This 75/25 split by Valve reminds me of the psychology experiment the Ultimatum Game: "'Inequity aversion' is so strong that people are willing to sacrifice personal gain in order to prevent another person from receiving an inequitably better outcome." https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-work/200911/...

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#69
The idea to sell unofficial third-party add-ons for third-party products sound generally a dangerous concept, and doing so without any quality control or responsibility sound to me as inviting destruction. If you pay for a product, and it randomly breaks at a later date because of a patch, someone is going to have to take responsibility. If its not the game developer (they didn't get paid), and its not the mod developer (its not their fault that the game got patched), its likely going to be the store who pocked 75% of the money. Add to this the infinite ways mods can interact with each other, or mods that depend on other mods, and the legal requirement to sell mods created by private people seems impossible in the best of lights.

Donations, Kickstarter, and Patreon on other hand is currently already working to provide compensation to passionate content providers. Valve could have gone this way and made it easier to donate and support modders.

Re: Valve shuts down paid mod system after pressure from gamers

#70
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first they tried to give passionate content providers a way to also make some money. Given that the "passionate content providers" only make 25% of what users pay, I think that's a very generous interpretation. Edit: It doesn't matter if it's Valve or Bethesda or the tooth fairy that takes the remaining 75% - the fact is this system does little to accomplish the goal of "giving passionate content providers a way t…

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?

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.
Post reply on HN