DLC vs. Modding

[Chalks]

We are going to need approval to release mods (indeed, not to make mods as those are a private matter unless distributed, in other words, released)?

No.

The in game distribution system will have the ability for people to flag mods for review if they think they are a violation of the EULA or something - so if a spammer starts publishing a load of mods trying to sell viagra, then they'll be able to remove them - but there is no system of pre-approval.

 

[need my speed]

Ah ok, that's good.

 

[Ahriman]

My *guess* would be that the Firaxis-managed mod-control system would be for similar purpose to including Rhyes and Fall and FFH1 in the BTS disk. To take "finished" mods and showcase them with easy install.

I doubt they want to deal with buggy, incomplete mods that are still in development getting constant updates.

 

[Shiggs713]

this is probably a response to all the "modders do it better than firaxis anyways" attitude and maybe they just wanted to throw their weight around a little and show all of us who's boss. Lets show them who's boss and say piss on DLC and don't buy it. I suppose the MP game is a complete crap shoot at this point too. Nobody is even talking about that. I'm not excited in the least for this game anymore.

 

[deanej]

No.

The in game distribution system will have the ability for people to flag mods for review if they think they are a violation of the EULA or something - so if a spammer starts publishing a load of mods trying to sell viagra, then they'll be able to remove them - but there is no system of pre-approval.

That's not what I've read.

Up till now it's been assumed that you could install any mod weather it was on the Firaxis system or not, but the Babylon situation is making me suspect that one will only be able to install and use mods on the Firaxis system.

 

[GigaNerd]

That's not what I've read.

Up till now it's been assumed that you could install any mod weather it was on the Firaxis system or not, but the Babylon situation is making me suspect that one will only be able to install and use mods on the Firaxis system.

*pang of realization*

Crud!

 

[HamTard]

Paid DLC and free community mod tools can co-exist. It did for Oblivion. As long as the community makes unique mods and doesn't just steal the paid DLC, there should be no problems.

 

[Ahriman]

but the Babylon situation is making me suspect that one will only be able to install and use mods on the Firaxis system

While I suppose this is theoretically possible, it seems very very unlikely.

If nothing else, mods don't spring into appearance fully-fledged. They go through long periods of development and feedback - check the post-counts in some of the mod forums.

More importantly, you create a mod by making a skeleton version, testing it, making changes, testing it, etc. all on your local copy.

If you couldn't install a mod except through a central server, then it would be virtually impossible to even create a mod.

 

[deanej]

Well, it somehow works for iPhone apps.

As for DLC and mods co-existing, how on Earth does that work? What about mods like RFC, or scenarios set is Mesopotamia? Such mods cannot be made because of the DLC situation.

 

[Chalks]

Well, it somehow works for iPhone apps.

As for DLC and mods co-existing, how on Earth does that work? What about mods like RFC, or scenarios set is Mesopotamia? Such mods cannot be made because of the DLC situation.

I'm not sure why you're trying to use a really restrictive licensing system as the template for how you think this modding system will work.

Do you think you are going to have to buy a "Civ 5 mod developer license" in order to write mods?

No, of course not. It's nothing like iPhone development what so ever.

 

[MrHan]

It would be very ironic if Firaxis decided to severely restrict modding even after having hired Jon Shafer (a modder) as the lead designer.
Which is why I'm not too worried that paid DLC will cripple modding. Although the possibility is there, it's unlikely.

I'm still kinda miffed about the Babylon situation though; makes me feel cheated.

 

[deanej]

I'm not sure why you're trying to use a really restrictive licensing system as the template for how you think this modding system will work.

Do you think you are going to have to buy a "Civ 5 mod developer license" in order to write mods?

No, of course not. It's nothing like iPhone development what so ever.

I don't know anything about iPhone development other than the fact that the app store is very restrictive, but that's enough for the comparison here, as we are talking about the distribution system, no? I would imagine that there would be an in-game way to create your own mod and to install a mod but that you wouldn't be able to just create a directory in the mods folder any more. Frankly, the only way I see to resolve the Babylon problem is to restrict mods that use Babylon to the deluxe version. And that requires some form of control from Firaxis.

 

[snarko]

Up till now it's been assumed that you could install any mod weather it was on the Firaxis system or not, but the Babylon situation is making me suspect that one will only be able to install and use mods on the Firaxis system.

You suspect wrong.

Eurogamer: But modders will still be able to distribute their work in the chaotic old-fashioned way of the internet...

Dennis Shirk: Oh yes! People will be able to download from mod sites, of course!

Jon Shafer: We're definitely not looking to replace the community, here. We're just here to provide a showcase for people who expand the game.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't know anything about iPhone development other than the fact that the app store is very restrictive, but that's enough for the comparison here, as we are talking about the distribution system, no?

No, its a terrible comparison. iPhone apps are made by companies that pay to get developer status and then sell apps for profit.

Civ mods are made by fans and then distributed for free.

iPhone apps are in a proprietary system; you can't change how an iphone app you've purchased works just using a text editor or by copy-pasting files. Civ4 (and presumably 5) mods are very open and easy to add and change.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Jon Shafer: We're going to have a utility that packages up the mods you make, too. In Civ IV, there were hundreds of files, tons of directories, and you toss in a readme, and hope people read it, and don't install the mod into their system directory. This utility puts it all into one file that you can distrubute, and unbundle with Civ at the other end.

I guess similar form of utility would be used to pack DLC files and probably encrypt them to prevent unauthorized use.

 

[Dale]

I would just like to point out, with the paid DLC model, does anyone in all honesty believe 2K will allow any free community mod to exist in competition with a revenue stream? Whether it's on the hub or a mod site, they will not allow competition to their revenue raising DLC content to exist.

I have grave concerns on modding, and having my creative freedom limited. I am reconsidering whether I'll bother modding Civ5 now.

I also have serious concerns regarding content on fan sites and file hosting. What if modders start making mods for DLC? If it's uploaded to the hub I assume the hub will limit that mod to people with that DLC (as if works for other games). How does a fan site like CFC or WPC limit that file to only those people with that DLC? I as a fan site owner appear to now have to police all mod uploads to ensure I won't be at legal risk due to DLC mods being able to be downloaded by people who haven't paid for that DLC. This is a very serious question, and one Thunderfall has to ask too.

 

[Chalks]

I am reconsidering whether I'll bother modding Civ5 now.

Reconsidering based on no information what so ever? I think my definition of "consider" differs from yours.

They have ALWAYS released content via expansion packs. What are the rules about modding based on expansion pack data? It'll be the same rules for modding based on DLC data.

It's astonishing that nobody saw DLC coming. Civ, this game with fundamentally modular components being released in an age where everything and its dog comes with DLC...

 

[Dale]

Reconsidering based on no information what so ever? I think my definition of "consider" differs from yours.

They have ALWAYS released content via expansion packs. What are the rules about modding based on expansion pack data? It'll be the same rules for modding based on DLC data.

It's astonishing that nobody saw DLC coming. Civ, this game with fundamentally modular components being released in an age where everything and its dog comes with DLC...

There is a HUGE difference between free DLC in Civ4 (WW1 mod, etc) and fighting against the corporate machine grubbing for money. I knew there'd be DLC, but under the same model as Civ4, either free (like WW1 mod) or included in patches/expansions (like Civ4).

The expansion model is a completely different thing. XP's gave modders extremely clear, very defined lines in the sand of what could be crossed. Every modder knew they could use a vanilla leader in a BtS mod, but couldn't transfer Great People to vanilla. It was made even simpler as all Warlords content except scenarios was also released with BtS. 2K have set a new precedent for Civ, in that their intentions to turn Civ into a continuous revenue stream have been exposed by charging an extra $10 for Babylon, and enticing expensive pre-orders via the map pack. We have entered the Sims model of DLC.

If someone release a Mesopotamia map, how "similar" to the paid DLC must it be to be classed as "infringing copyright" and removed? That is an extremely grey area. Similarly, if I make WW2 with Stalin, and then 2K release Stalin as paid DLC, am I then in that grey zone and risk removal?

I've seen in other games, mods released to the public and then removed later when that company released paid DLC that overlapped with that mod. 2K will do whatever it can to protect its revenue streams.

I'm a fan of a game, totally unpaid for whatever I do for that game. Why should I run the risk of entering that grey zone and then have 2K lawyers knocking on my door? I'd rather not bother thanks. It's just a game.

 

[Chalks]

There is a HUGE difference between free DLC in Civ4 (WW1 mod, etc) and fighting against the corporate machine grubbing for money. I knew there'd be DLC, but under the same model as Civ4, either free (like WW1 mod) or included in patches/expansions (like Civ4).

The expansion model is a completely different thing. XP's gave modders extremely clear, very defined lines in the sand of what could be crossed. Every modder knew they could use a vanilla leader in a BtS mod, but couldn't transfer Great People to vanilla. It was made even simpler as all Warlords content except scenarios was also released with BtS. 2K have set a new precedent for Civ, in that their intentions to turn Civ into a continuous revenue stream have been exposed by charging an extra $10 for Babylon, and enticing expensive pre-orders via the map pack. We have entered the Sims model of DLC.

If someone release a Mesopotamia map, how "similar" to the paid DLC must it be to be classed as "infringing copyright" and removed? That is an extremely grey area. Similarly, if I make WW2 with Stalin, and then 2K release Stalin as paid DLC, am I then in that grey zone and risk removal?

I've seen in other games, mods released to the public and then removed later when that company released paid DLC that overlapped with that mod. 2K will do whatever it can to protect its revenue streams.

I'm a fan of a game, totally unpaid for whatever I do for that game. Why should I run the risk of entering that grey zone and then have 2K lawyers knocking on my door? I'd rather not bother thanks. It's just a game.

You're just making things up.

They set clear guidelines for expansion content, then you make up that they're not going to do this for DLC.

Then you make up a bunch of unreasonable things they'll do because of the unclear guidelines that you also just made up.

Then you complain about made up lawyers knocking on your door. I guess you probably do have a door, so at least part of that story didn't come from your imagination.

 

[Dale]

You're just making things up.

They set clear guidelines for expansion content, then you make up that they're not going to do this for DLC.

Then you make up a bunch of unreasonable things they'll do because of the unclear guidelines that you also just made up.

Then you complain about made up lawyers knocking on your door. I guess you probably do have a door, so at least part of that story didn't come from your imagination.

This has happened for other games. I myself have had take-down notices and had mods for other games just disappear when new DLC is presented.

Are you denying that 2K will use DLC for revenue streams?
Are you denying that 2K will do all it can to protect those revenue streams?
Are you denying that a free modder's Babylon is a threat to the 2K revenue stream Babylon?
Are you denying that 2K is a company which is in dire need of revenue?
Are you denying that take-downs and C&D's have been issued on modders encroaching on publisher revenue stream DLC for other games?
Are you denying that 2K is changing Civ5 to provide DLC revenue streams?
Are you denying that free modder content is a serious thread to 2K revenue streams?

It is a serious concern for modders. If you don't believe me, I don't care. I'll be modding a different game where there's no risk.

Oh, and before you make your next post I suggest you use evidence against the facts in my posts, rather than just call me a liar.