DLC and MODS Conflict of interests.

So what happens when someone makes a mod that is too close to the official DLC? Do you think firaxis will disallow this? I have a feeling that they will. Why allow fan made free content that will cut into your bottom line?

 

Well, official products will always have more polish. And, they have the resources to do a lot more with the game. I doubt their add-on content will be that simple (no offense to modders).

 

Just go and compare BUG mod and the vanilla interface for CIV.

Case closed

 

Note we don't even know if there is official DLC other than the Deluxe version.

Probably nothing.

No.

Based on your gut?

Because you don't want to alienate fans of a game for which modability is a key attraction? Civ4 is probably one of the most heavily modded games in existence.

Yeah, that's not true.

Compare FFH2, RFC, ROM, (dare I say) Dune Wars to any of the official scenarios. Or heck, even the expansions. FFH2 introduces way more features than Warlords and BTS combined.

 

Isn't the Mesopotamian map pack DLC? The fact that they said, "You would get it for free," with the pre-order probably means they plan to charge for it normally.


Also, I do find it unlikely that they wouldn't care in the slightest that people would add in a civilization that they basically are charging 10 bucks for (the other things in the Deluxe pack are basically irrelevant) in a mod for free. That would be directly infringing on their profits.

 

I'm not concerned about Firaxis. They appreciate that modding is symbiotic. It trains their future stars.

I am concerned that marketing is in the hands of other business entities( 2K & Steam ), and they may be shortsighted in calling the shots, or fail to consult Firaxis before making the decisions.

I'm not encouraged by the way Steam has reportedly handled modded hats in another game.

Hopefully 2K will explain soon how this is going to work. Hopefully Steam will be happy enough selling the civers other games that they won't insist upon pay per DLC that affects gameplay.

 

As long as you're not blatantly ripping off Firaxis' DLC (such as using their work as your own) I doubt they're going to care.

 

I should have said 2K not Firaxis. And yeah it's just a gut feeling, but a feeling based on the trend of the game industry. A crappy trend I don't like. I mean I'll be cool with DLC if they're like mini-expansions for a reasonable price. But DLC for a lot of recent games has been overpriced crap.

 

A better question is...is anyone going to pay for Dlc's

 

I think people will play. But all of the DLC has to be aimed toward the modding community. Like for example Resource DLC, Civilizations DLC and Features DLC. If they try to simply put DLC out that features scenarios that aren't on the levels of FFH and the likes they will only make money from people who don't know how to get or use mods.

The problem though is how will DLC effect multiplayer and if they do something like I mentioned how will it effect those who didn't buy it?

DLC for a game based on giving you a foundation to build off of is for a lack of a better term ********. But I'm not in their development department so... It is, what it is.

 

Has no one on this message board played TESIV: Oblivion?

 

Bioware had pay DLC for Neverwinter Nights as well as user modifications - No issues

Betheseda has pay DLC for Oblivion and Fallout 3 as well as user modifications - again, No issues

I would imagine that mod authors will have the ability to lock their content, and paid DLC will be locked by Firaxis. Sure, you can make your own mod that is almost exactly like the official DLC, but it won't be official, which is a big selling point to a lot of people. That's just speculation though, don't quote me on it.

 

This still is a Civ game right?
Let's assume for a moment that it is, and the core game mechanics haven't changed all THAT much.
The "Deluxe Edition" extra "Babylon" civ could contain:

- A new leader called Nebuchadnezzar II;
- a unit called "Bowman" (Power 3, +50% defense vs. Melee, +25% Hill & City Defense) which replaces the normal Archer unit (Power 3, +25% Hill & City Defense);
- a unique building called "Garden" which replaces "Colosseum", adding 1 extra health and culture compared to the normal building.
- new professional models for buildings, cities and units.
​

Now, a modder creates a new mod, which among many, many other things (better AI, interface, 50 extra techs etc.) adds a new civ called "Babylon" which could contain:

- A new leader called Hammurabi;
- a unit called "Babylonian Archer" (Power 4, +35% Hill & City Defense) which replaces the normal Archer unit (Power 3, +25% Hill & City Defense);
- a unique building called "Stele" which replaces "Colosseum", adding 1 extra health and happiness compared to the normal building.
- new amateur -and slightly less good looking but who cares about that in a civ game- models for buildings, cities and units.
​

Will/would this be allowed?
At the moment, noone could really stop him, or stop me from downloading and installing it.
But with 2k games being able to control this "in-game new modding community & mod manager", wouldn't they pull the handbrake and say "Sorry, we're charging $10 for something similar, this mod is banned."?

 

@Xzylvador: I expect they would object if your "Babylon" was exactly the same as theirs - just as they would have objected if you released a mod for vanilla Civ IV that added all of the Warlords content. As you have presented it, they would have no grounds to object: it is not the same civ; not the same content. The only thing it shares is the name.

 

Yes

No.
You can still install and play mods from fansites like this one, just like for Civ4.

 

This. Intellectual property is actually a tricky field. No one can claim that their stuff is being pirated just because some mod is doing something similar. Not only that, but by providing modding tools they are practically begging the modders to go nuts, including copying stuff.

To ease some of the worries, note how civ4 has a mod called bluemarble, and it improved the graphics of the leaders. It even took some leaderheads and copied them outright, but altered the facial hair. If it was released in the context of an entirely new game then it would be an infringement of the copyright without a doubt. Because it was released as a mod of civ4 however there was no such infringement and the leaderheads could be used and altered and such without any problem. No one at Firaxis HQ cared, and you bet they noticed this mod.

 

If I were you, I wouldn't rely on neither of the above quoted postings.

BlueMarble, to the best of my knowledge, only altered the terrain graphics and gave a new background graphic to some of the advisor screens.

Even, if it would have contained changed leaderheads, then still you would have had to have the appropriate expansion pack to make use of the relevant version of BlueMarble.

This is something, which to the best of my knowledge stands true for almost any modification of Civ4 - they may have initially been developed for vanilla Civ4, but were ported upwards to Warlords and later to BtS.
Therefore, if such a modification would have made use of WL leaderheads (re-skining, changing), you would have needed the WL expansion. Since BtS contained the graphics of WL, porting a changed leaderhead from WL to BtS didn't constitute any legal problem.

With the Babylon nation, this most probably will be different:
As purchaser of the standard version, you are not possessing the Nebuchadnezar leader. To do so, you will have to buy the DE (developer's edition, whatever it will be finally called).
In case you do not purchase that version, in the standard version you are missing the frame, the animation and whatnotever.
Therefore, if someone would provide a modification in which Nebuchadnezar would be the basis for a new leader, let's say for a modified king Nabonid, this would not be legal for you to use - as stated, as long as you are not already in possession of the DE.

The same stands true in case of Babylon providing you with a special unit graphics (in terms of shape or animation).
Just giving that unit a different color and then using it in a modification for the standard Civ5 would be copyright-breaking - unless (pending) stated otherwise by Firaxis/2K.

Such a statement has been asked for and up to now was not given by the 2K representative here.

 

2K doesn't hold the rights to Babylon, or it's former leaders and units. As long as nothing that's in the mod comes from anything that Firaxis has done, they can't really do anything legally about blocking it. Babylon itself is public domain, it's part of the world's historic tradition, so people are free to do their own thing with it. It's only the artwork and resources itself that the company has any claim to.

 

Has this been confirmed? It sure sounded like mods would have to go through 2K's in game mod interface which would give them full control.

 

Yes, from Firaxis.

No, it never sounded like this, except from people deliberately trying to distort the issue.