Paying for mods

Would you pay for a mod?


  • Total voters
    62
@ warpus :rotfl:

RE: refunds, yes, I definitely agree with that!

I truly would not mind a way to donate to some of the amazing modders on this forum, though. Really.

I think that everyone should have an accessible site with a paypal button. Whether they make a mod, or write a good story, or make me laugh, or make a forum post that teaches me something, I would like to have the option to reward them.
 
So, again, here's a crosspost from what I said on the other threads concerning the matter; as I mention below, I, like some of the folks here, have modded and know what it's like to not only mod but also deal with community dynamics:

After some thinking, here are my thoughts as someone who has, if I may so boast, quite some modding experience (albeit not with Skyrim modding).

I don't think giving modders money is necessarily a bad thing. Modding can be hellishly like work sometimes. It can be stressful not only dealing with the actual modding process, but also with a vocal minority of entitled asshat users who act like dicks when you don't do things their way or cater to their demands. Though I haven't had it happen to me, apparently Crakedtoothgrin, a CKII modder who has occasionally been contracted by PI to make some artwork, even had people stalking him online when they got pissy. Certainly, making a bit of dough would make me more willing to put up with all that sort of crap.

However, as the implementation here is sloppy and awful, my biggest concern is what some may know as "modder drama". The (a?) Nexus admin correctly predicted this was going to happen a month or so ago, and stated their reservations:

Even right now, in the world of open and free modding, things are competitive. Lots of mod authors like to fight for that hot file, for that file of the month vote, they want more views, more downloads, more endorsements. I wouldn't say it's an unhealthy obsession, not yet anyway, but it's always been there, that stark contrast between those mod authors who don't care about such "trivial" things, and those mod authors who really do, who really want their mods out there as much as possible. And sure, we have to sort out some squabbles every now and again, but such rivalries and competitions don't turn sour often because the thing being sought after is not some sort of finite resource with only so much to go around. A download, an endorsement; users can download and endorse more than one mod. They can do that for a lot of mods. Money, however, is finite. When you're competing to make your mod the top mod, the most bought mod, when you're trying to earn more money than your peers are you telling me that things don't change? You're now competing over a finite resource. Users only have so much money, after all. How does this change and affect other areas of the community?

How many mods on the Nexus use assets made by other mod authors? How many are made better by this? Such assets are used with the express permission of the creators of those assets. If a mod author came to you and asked if he could use some of your work in their mod that they were planning to sell for $5, would you feel more or less inclined to give him that permission? Would you, perhaps rightly, ask for a cut of the proceeds, a revenue share of your own? If you're one of those great authors who releases your mods freely for others to make use of in their mods, or a modder's resource developer, are you going to think about revisiting all your permissions in light of money entering the modding community? Are you still thinking about being so generous with your work?

How many mods have been developed by a team of mod authors? Lots of people working together to develop something amazing. Look at Nehrim or Falskaar, two epic, highly rated mods made by extensive groups of modders. I think a lot of us will have said at one point or another, either about those mods or about others, "I'd definitely pay for this". And my god, there are so many mods out there that are so good, so professional, so well done that yes, I'd pay for them in an instant! I mean, once you get SkyUI you don't ever want to think about going back to the way it was before again, right? But how are you going to sort out who gets what from selling such mods? We get lots of drama now, without any money changing hands, over permissions and credits, I don't even want to think how horrible it would be to try and sort out such issues when money is involved. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Some who haven't been involved in modding may think the issue of asking permission or receiving credit as simply a pleasant matter of asking a question, but it's often not. People may conflict over how work can be integrated, whether the mod-taker has the right to change content he/she takes, how crediting should be done, and so on. Like treaties between nations and implementation of domestic law, people may agree to something, but then disagree on interpreting it - ie, I gave you permission to use x, in a manner y, but that did not imply you could do z with x. And then there's the issue that even if you make mod A and give permission for mod B to use its contents, you'll have to deal with mod B granting permission to mod C to use it; even if you make the creator of B agree to make others credit A, it's difficult to make sure they enforce it - and then mod C might give mod D permission, and so on.

Part of why I've always been very laid-back with regards to these matters when I modded CKII was because I wanted to avoid all this potential drama. Many, many modders, including some I've worked with, share vastly different approaches. Essentially, things are going to get a hella complicated now when we factor in this finite resource called money. And how will these squabbles be solved quickly and efficiently now, when money is involved? Normally, they are solved through faith and this sort of unspoken code of honor, or through giant flamewars. At the end of the day, though, the general consensus is that modders help each other. Throw in money, and this makes the idea of sharing your stuff less appealing. If I were making money off my CKII mods, I'd have been much, much less easy-going with these sort of matters

Perhaps Valve's implementation of this was fated to be sloppy and awful no matter what, regardless, given how chaotic and complicated the modding world can really be. It's like international law, where there's no supreme authority to enforce anything.

Anyways, I've sometimes joked to my fellow modders that you have to think of your mod projects a bit like a business, but that was mainly in terms of how you advertised yourself and in terms of finding niches and satisfying user demand. I never thought it could be like this. Things are going to get interesting, I suppose, or, it might end up after the initial wave of anger no one will care. We'll see.

But hey, I can guarantee you those porn mods will never be on sale.
 
"I'm sorry, we don't do refunds" is illegal in the UK and probably in the rest of the EU. Valve couldn't care less though.
There are distance selling laws that apply to most online purchases, but I'm not sure software counts.
 
And that would be why the paid mods went down for a while (from ParadoxPlaza):

Paid mods are back up again. Apparently, the maintenance was to remove the ability to make user comments on mods.

There are distance selling laws that apply to most online purchases, but I'm not sure software counts.

Oh, it certainly does, which is why Valve explicitly requires you to waive your right to a refund in order to be able to download a game from them. They're still scum, but they generally have a good profile (presumably because they have a handy service and they're not EA, Activision, etc.)
 
Personally I try to avoid Steam wherever possible. They're usually more expensive too, so it doesn't even cost me anything. Best of both worlds.
 
I have a Steam account, after years of not doing so (originally for playing EU IV), but the vast majority of the games I have there were bought from HumbleBundle during their charity bundles and have never been installed, let alone played. I also have a long-standing policy of buying my games from GG or GOG wherever possible.
 
"I'm sorry, we don't do refunds" is illegal in the UK and probably in the rest of the EU. Valve couldn't care less though.

Steam is facing litigation in Australia at the moment on this issue - refunds must be offered for products that aren't fit for purpose, and the 24 hour grace period isn't good enough. If the consumer protection agency is successful, Steam would have to allow a much more generous refund policy, and would probably have to ensure some sort of minimum quality control. I don't imagine paid mods are going to make things easier for them, particularly if a degree of quality control is required.

Modders are not required to charge for their mod, it's an option that the modder has to select, and it has to be reviewed. A modder is perfectly free to have a free version and a paid version.

Modders keep 25% of the revenue (for Skyrim, will vary by game), with Steam taking 30% and Bethesda taking the rest.

Once a modder has earned $100 (so, $400 in total sales), the money is disbursed as Valve does not disburse funds until the amount has reached $100.

Interestingly, the mod creator can specify that a percentage of Valve's cut goes to one of a pre-approved list of organizations, which in the case of Skyrim as the various modding sites. Does this make it any better?

I'm not sure 25% for the modder is too low in any case. I'm not sure what the usual distribution is on these sort of things, but it's worth keeping in mind that Valve is assuming fairly significant risk and will need to dedicate a fairly significant part of their business to dealing with this innovation (if it's extended further). Depending on their agreement with the particular publisher and how many people divert the money to one of the pre-approved organizations, I think it's doubtful that they'd make a huge profit out of this.
 
It's a free market. As long as an agreement can be reached between the original game publisher and whoever made the mod, I'm not seeing a problem here.
 
It's a free market. As long as an agreement can be reached between the original game publisher and whoever made the mod, I'm not seeing a problem here.

There's a LOT of problems with the implementation. Just to name a couple:

1.) No system in place to stop people from uploading other people's mods and claiming them as their own work to make money.

2.) No consumer protections in place... people can put up mods as "early access alpha", completely abandon the project a couple of weeks later, and everyone who already paid is SOL.

3.) Most of the really good mods contain resources and work done by other modders and there is no way in this system for those modders to share in the proceeds.

That's just the stuff that came to mind right away, I've been following this closely and seen a lot of other good arguments for why this is a terrible implementation of a not altogether terrible idea.
 
3.) Most of the really good mods contain resources and work done by other modders and there is no way in this system for those modders to share in the proceeds.

I've seen some claims that this is not accurate. No source or certainty, but...

When you monetize the mod you can split the payment with a distribution you specify. This is to deal with the very common "modding team". The problem is that Valve disburses nothing, ever, until they owe someone a hundred dollars US. So if you have a team of five and sell a four dollar mod, the modders share is a dollar...split five ways is twenty cents assuming an even split. So instead of Valve paying out when you get a hundred sales they won't pay out until you hit five hundred.

It would theoretically be possible to add all the modders who supplied resources into this split, assuming you could provide Valve with their payment information. But again, the more you split it down the more likely Valve will never have to pay out. I'm sure they won't mind.
 
I've seen some claims that this is not accurate. No source or certainty, but...

When you monetize the mod you can split the payment with a distribution you specify. This is to deal with the very common "modding team". The problem is that Valve disburses nothing, ever, until they owe someone a hundred dollars US. So if you have a team of five and sell a four dollar mod, the modders share is a dollar...split five ways is twenty cents assuming an even split. So instead of Valve paying out when you get a hundred sales they won't pay out until you hit five hundred.

It would theoretically be possible to add all the modders who supplied resources into this split, assuming you could provide Valve with their payment information. But again, the more you split it down the more likely Valve will never have to pay out. I'm sure they won't mind.

To add to this, there are further complications. Again, like I said in my big ramble earlier, people really don't realize how complex modder politics and sharing can be. It isn't a simple "Yo can I use your stuff?" "Yes/No."

- What if one of the modders you took stuff from states that you cannot use his/her stuff for monetary gain? Valve apparently says if your stuff is free then you have no right to complain if people use your stuff then.
- What if you have permission to take stuff from modder A, but that modder took stuff from modder B? And what if B took stuff from C? You might have to go through a line of different modders, crediting all of them, and that list might end up rather large especially if you're using something made by a team.
- Some mods are bigger than others, obviously. A simple retexture of a shirt isn't the same level of modding as a complete redesign of the game's economy. So some mods would deserve, I believe, "more" compensation than others if you were to integrate both into your paid mod.
- That's not to mention that in teams of modders, some modders do more work than others, and would deserve a bigger cut (this is not to say the modders who work less aren't important or lazy, that's just how things are). Throw in potential inter-team drama about whether they should be a paid mod in the first place, whether they
- And, ashinted earlier, what if you don't give credit anyways? It's easy to deal with now and report to Valve as there aren't a lot of mods, and if you take from a famous mod a lot of fans will know; but what about when there are a lot of paid mods and a lot mroe variables at play?


And that's not to mention the reservations I have in place that I stated previously - granting permissions and/or giving credits is not a simple matter, and can often be a thorny issue where different parties may have different interpretations of what they are allowed to and not allowed to do, and sometimes rests on gentlemen's agreements. Throw money in, and you'll see a lot of more tension and conflict between modders and mod teams (and within mod teams), much of which everyday users - and game devs/Valve - won't see because it'll be closed doors, behind the scenes stuff as per custom, kinda like international negotiations.

In essence, there are just a lot of complicating variables that make this a clusterpoop can of worms.
 
I wouldn't pay for any mod, personally. Not because the creators don't deserve it, I just don't care enough about mods to pay for them.
 
When I get the kind of money where I could give money to modmakers, I plan to donate to those ones I just can't live without (RI, Long War for XCOM, etc.) but I'd give them $15-$30 because the kind of mods I can't live without might as well be expacs.

Paying to use a mod is idiotic for so many reasons that I get exhausted just thinking about them all.
 
I donated $5 to Chesko last night. I think Frostfall is an essential part of Skyrim immersion and he got a bad deal for being the first person hung out to dry. Plus, if I'm going to make a comment that I'd rather donate to mods than pay for them, I should at least stick to that.
 
Rumor has it that the Steam Workshop is being creatively flooded with mods. Add an apple on this table, a vital improvement for immersion in Skyrim. Fifty dollars. Add dialog line "No paid mods allowed in this town" to town guards. Twenty dollars. The nothing mod, which according to the description does absolutely nothing. Thirty dollars. Etc, etc, etc.
 
Rumor has it that the Steam Workshop is being creatively flooded with mods. Add an apple on this table, a vital improvement for immersion in Skyrim. Fifty dollars. Add dialog line "No paid mods allowed in this town" to town guards. Twenty dollars. The nothing mod, which according to the description does absolutely nothing. Thirty dollars. Etc, etc, etc.

Heh heh, I've been hearing about the satirical protest mods too. I honestly hope most people aren't stupid enough to buy them, even if they agree with the point the mods are making or not.
 
Yea I am curious if people have ever donated to mods before this point?
 
Heh heh, I've been hearing about the satirical protest mods too. I honestly hope most people aren't stupid enough to buy them, even if they agree with the point the mods are making or not.

I don't think anyone intends for them to actually sell. I must admit I hadn't thought of what happens if they do though.
 
Yea I am curious if people have ever donated to mods before this point?

Donations have been happening often enough before in not just the Skyrim modding community but in modding communities in general (except where it explicitly isn't allowed by the devs/producers of the game). Nexus, for instance, has always had a donate button. So it definitely happens in the modding world in general. There was some news recently about how a former Maxis employee, for instance, was able to make quite a bit of money via Patreon when he made Cities Skylines mods. Regardless, this whole thing may encourage more people to donate.
 
Back
Top Bottom