Mods and Money!?

[GrimReaper]

On 6/30/2018 at 6:56 AM, dagobaking said:

Are you now saying that you did not frame the basis of a theoretical Bethesda lawsuit as IP?

You're just doing the same thing as the last post. Asserting an idea without actually adding anything new or addressing the way I have already responded to the same point.

 

Releasing reverse engineered, proprietary code, to the public against their terms of service 100% is an IP matter. And sending mixed messages about their stance on IP as it relates to modding would 100% be relevant to an IP based lawsuit over modding. The argument would be that Bethesda arbitrarily enforces their IP rights because at large, they profit from the interest that modders create in their product. In light of this, they are wrongfully seeking to prevent modders from profiting from THEIR IP that exists in the mods, even though through their own actions, Bethesda clearly demonstrates that they know they are already benefitting from the modders work.

 

Sorry. One party doesn't get to be the only one who can profit from their IP just because they made a ToS. If they had not actively encouraged modding, it would be a different story. [And as written before, this is why you have not demonstrated a business reason why Bethesda is anywhere close to going after modders in the first place. They are making millions off of modders now. Shutting some modder down is a loss for Bethesda. Not a gain.]

 

In discovery, I am certain that there would be massive numbers of emails proving what I am saying as they share strategy, ideas, research about how much they make from modding AND what their real motives for picking and choosing modders to go after is based on.

 

And this is why I pointed out in the beginning that Bethesda has allowed ToS and IP violations for years. Not sure why you think it applies differently to copyright than to IP enforcement.

I said that Bethesda could sue modders who hide behind a paywall and claim they're doing it to protect their IP. 'Intellectual Property' isn't a lawsuit, just like 'Property' isn't a lawsuit. It's a legal definition that comes with certain rights, regulations and laws and breaking any of these might result in a lawsuit. Though honestly, I don't know why you even decided to open this side debate as nobody in their right mind would actually try to challenge Zenimax in a court. Which makes this a moot point because I was talking about how paid modding gives Zenimax/Bethesda a reason they can sell to the public as a good reason to threaten modders because they make money off of games Bethesda developed. Which paid modders do because a mod can't exist without the game the mod is based on. Which is why it's called a mod. A modification of something that existed prior.

[dagobaking]

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I said that Bethesda could sue modders who hide behind a paywall and claim they're doing it to protect their IP.

Bethesda could sue modders who use a paywall and claim that they are being mean to monkeys.

 

People can sue other people for any reason.

Quote

'Intellectual Property' isn't a lawsuit, just like 'Property' isn't a lawsuit.

I know that IP is not "a lawsuit" and nothing that I wrote suggests that I think it is.

Quote

It's a legal definition

It's not a legal definition either.

 

It refers to certain types of property that someone has. Complaints are filed based on someone violating intellectual property rights all the time. You framed it that way and I addressed it the same way that you meant it.

 

If you want to change your argument to not be about Bethesda trying to enforce IP rights that is fine by me. But, don't try to put it on me like I misunderstood or don't know what IP is. That is just insulting.

Quote

Though honestly, I don't know why you even decided to open this side debate

Because you brought up IP, I addressed IP and  you responded by saying that I changed the subject.

Quote

as nobody in their right mind would actually try to challenge Zenimax in a court.

I brought this up myself as the response to your point about "why doesn't anyone outright sell mods". Because Zenimax has massive financial leverage. And that is not being right on the issue in principle. That is just people getting bullied.

 

You never know though. There could be organizations that would help a modder pro bono. A modder could turn out to be a lawyer themselves. Or, just someone determined enough to do the work to fight on principle. As a private citizen, you can represent yourself. So, it would just cost you your time. While a full IP lawsuit would likely cost Zenimax millions of dollars with probably zero chance of recovering that cost.

 

More likely, Zenimax could get into a battle with someone over a market site like Nexus. Currently, Nexus started a system to pay modders. It's obfuscated by being a "share" of the sites revenue. But, it is in fact generating revenue off of mods and transferring it to modders. If Zenimax goes after Nexus for this, they might fold and just tell everyone the bad news. Or, they might fight back. Who knows.

Quote

Which paid modders do because a mod can't exist without the game the mod is based on.

Right. And I pointed out that this is a two-way street. Bethesda has made a lot of money off of interest in their game created by modding. And they would not have done that without the work and IP provided by modders.

 

In a big legal tug-of-war, legal bullying aside, I believe that a judge would seek to untangle it by looking for ways that both parties could benefit from their IP. The indication from Bethesda so far is that they are ok with this too to some degree. Them rocking the boat is a  greater risk to them than to an individual modder.

[dagobaking]

Coincidentally, Patreon's site is down right now.

 

I wonder if it's maintenance or if they were attacked for cracking down on adult content?

[GrimReaper]

I personally consider quote wars a bad form of online discussion, i.e. breaking down a post into single sentences and then responding to these single sentences with multiple of your own. However, you claiming that intellectual property isn't a legal definition is just comical, to be honest. Anyway, to clarify why I don't like quote wars:

 

I said:

54 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I said that Bethesda could sue modders who hide behind a paywall and claim they're doing it to protect their IP.

you said:

31 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Bethesda could sue modders who use a paywall and claim that they are being mean to monkeys.

 

People can sue other people for any reason. 

Quite a snarky comment, but you conveniently left out this part

55 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I was talking about how paid modding gives Zenimax/Bethesda a reason they can sell to the public as a good reason to threaten modders because they make money off of games Bethesda developed.

Really makes you think

[dagobaking]

15 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I personally consider quote wars a bad form of online discussion, i.e. breaking down a post into single sentences and then responding to these single sentences with multiple of your own.

That is interesting. I personally consider responding to single sentences as a well-organized way of replying to context on a forum instead of constantly trying to explain which point you are responding to in one big paragraph.

Quote

 

However, you claiming that intellectual property isn't a legal definition is just comical, to be honest.

Is it comical? What is the full definition and who authored and maintains it? Please post it here.

Quote

Quite a snarky comment, but you conveniently left out this part

I fully responded to that point multiple times now. You theorize that Bethesda will threaten modders if they think someone is making money off of mods. I replied that this makes zero business sense since Bethesda makes a lot of money from interest generated by modding. Threatening modders or shutting down modding would be a loss for them. Not a gain. So, I find your theoretical motivation to be implausible. Please identify something that Bethesda would gain by doing this and maybe I can be persuaded.

Quote

Really makes you think

What really makes me think is that you make this "you left out where I said" statement while pretty much not addressing a single actual point that I made.

[GrimReaper]

18 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

That is interesting. I personally consider responding to single sentences as a well-organized way of replying on a forum instead of constantly trying to explain which point you are responding to in one big paragraph.

Depends. Usually it leads to the obfuscation of the original argument so that one can sneak in a strawman. But even if that's not the case, it quickly spirals out of control and leads to wall of texts that bury the whole thread underneath them. Especially if you reply to a single sentence with multiple sentences.

21 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Is it comical? What is the full definition and who authored and maintains it? Please post it here.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intellectual-property/

It goes without saying that the very concept of property is a legal one.

27 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

I fully responded to that point multiple times now.

That doesn't change the fact that you left out the part that made your response obsolete. I was concerned that paid mods give Bethesda/Zenimax a good reason to use. Justifying your lawsuit because you want to be mean to monkeys obviously wouldn't be a reason you could sell as a good reason to the public.

30 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

You theorize that Bethesda will threaten modders if they think someone is making money off of mods.

No, I said modders hiding behind paywalls are playing with fire because if Bethesda decides to threaten them, they have a good reason to. It won't be as big as a PR desaster as if they'd be going after modders entirely unprovoked. Of course this depends on Bethesda/Zenimax and if they actually want to shut down paid modding.

33 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

I replied that this makes zero business sense since Bethesda makes a lot of money from interest generated by modding.

Which I already said is hard to quantify.

35 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Threatening modders or shutting down modding would be a loss for them. Not a gain.

If that's the only thing they'd be doing, sure. But they've already introduced the CC which displays an interest in monetizing modding and exercising control over the scene. Shutting down most of the free mods also shuts down a lot of the competition the CC has.

 

38 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Please identify something that Bethesda would gain by doing this and maybe I can be persuaded.

Neither do I have insight in what Bethesda has planned for the future nor do I consider it my job to convince you. But with the CC and Fallout 76 being online only, well. I'd say it's about money and control, but that's just me.

[dagobaking]

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intellectual-property/

Seriously?

 

A web site explaining what the term means as a matter of legal jargon does not make it "a" legal definition. lol

 

That's like saying that zebras are "a dictionary definition" because they have an entry on websters.com

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

It goes without saying that the very concept of property is a legal one.

Which is a very different statement than saying that the concept of intellectual property is "a legal definition".

 

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

That doesn't change the fact that you left out the part that made your response obsolete. I was concerned that paid mods give Bethesda/Zenimax a good reason to use. Justifying your lawsuit because you want to be mean to monkeys obviously wouldn't be a reason you could sell as a good reason to the public.

It didn't make my point obsolete. It applied the same. I think you just missed what the point was: people don't need good reasons to sue.

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

No, I said modders hiding behind paywalls are playing with fire because if Bethesda decides to threaten them, they have a good reason to. It won't be as big as a PR desaster as if they'd be going after modders entirely unprovoked. Of course this depends on Bethesda/Zenimax and if they actually want to shut down paid modding.

What reason to threaten exists that is good for Bethesda? They would gain nothing. Maybe gain a legal bill. And when the modder stops, the money doesn't go to Bethesda instead. Their bottom line is the same if not lower if they piss off a bunch of people who liked that mod.

 

You characterize it as a good reason to threaten. But, then provide no logic for why that reason would be good for Bethesda.

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

Which I already said is hard to quantify.

And impossible to deny.

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

If that's the only thing they'd be doing, sure. But they've already introduced the CC which displays an interest in monetizing modding and exercising control over the scene. Shutting down most of the free mods also shuts down a lot of the competition the CC has.

76 was announced and the response was immediately dominated by concern over whether or not it would support mods. Just about every article and video about 76 touched on the subject. And Bethesda seemed concerned enough to also bring it up at every opportunity themselves.

 

Given that, you really think that shutting down mods to try and prop up CC would end up being good for Bethesda? They don't seem to think so.

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

Neither do I have insight in what Bethesda has planned for the future nor do I consider it my job to convince you. But with the CC and Fallout 76 being online only, well. I'd say it's about money and control, but that's just me.

76 is just the Fallout version of Elder Scrolls Online. It's not a sequel to Fallout the regular RPG game. They have emphasized that directly in response to people with the fears you describe.

 

Personally, I think it's crappy. I'm confident that consumers would have preferred that effort go toward a giant DLC or even a sooner Fallout 5 release. But, I don't think it was part of a grand plan to try to replace the enormous mod scene with a tiny, micro-managed one. They aren't insane.

[Guest]

@GrimReaper, @dagobaking, just remember to moderate the tones.

This discussion is progressing quiet enough, and I wish to keep it as is. Also if very often such threads derail in drama after 5 posts.

 

In case you want to blame each other (but, please, just don't do it) use a PM.

[love456352]

I am very much against the theft of people or the diversion of mods because of this very disrespect for authors and intellectual property rights.

 

Especially those who will divert paid content!

[GrimReaper]

9 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Seriously?

 

A web site explaining what the term means as a matter of legal jargon does not make it "a" legal definition. lol

 

That's like saying that zebras are "a dictionary definition" because they have an entry on websters.com

Which is a very different statement than saying that the concept of intellectual property is "a legal definition".

 

It's the other way around, actually. You're saying that zebra isn't a biological definition because it has an entry on a random dictionary.

[dagobaking]

5 hours ago, CPU said:

@GrimReaper, @dagobaking, just remember to moderate the tones.

This discussion is progressing quiet enough, and I wish to keep it as is. Also if very often such threads derail in drama after 5 posts.

 

In case you want to blame each other (but, please, just don't do it) use a PM.

No problem. I think I have offered my 10 cents and then some and am just repeating myself at this point.

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

It's the other way around, actually. You're saying that zebra isn't a biological definition because it has an entry on a random dictionary.

...

 

A definition for a thing doesn't make that thing the definition itself...

[Guest]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:09 AM, giuliohe151 said:

I don't really know how I feel about this topic....

On one hand something I liked about the modding community was that it was all created and shared for free , player made content for other players.
It is also true that selling mods goes against the ToS because modders are using the original game's files to make their mods and that as such it is not so legal.

Many of the players who install mods also happen to be students with no jobs ( like me ) and hiding mods behind a paywall would exclude them from getting said mods....and let's face it...if we were all favorable to the fact that you can capitalize your mods and earn something ( for as little as it can be ) instead of giving them away for free....why would you not do that ? I'm fairly sure a lot more modders would start locking their work behind payment....and pay for this and pay for that in the end it becomes pretty heavy....( hell, my skyrim game now counts about 500 mods....if I had to spend 5 $ for....let's even just say half of them because let's simulate the fact some modders would give away their work for free....it would be 5 x250 = 1250 $ I spent.....it's a lot....at this point I'd rather not use mods at all ) .

On the other hand....I myself have a few artist friends and like to support them when I can and think it's right to do so, these people deserve our support.

Still, the point is that as a student I can not buy myself a coffee for 2.50 every day as you said....I actually have to save my money for important stuff....and if I also had to pay for mods every time I want a new mod then I wouldn't be able to handle it the same way as I wouldn't be able to handle a p2p game or something like that ; I understand that with a decent carreer and a salary these amounts of money must look not so important to you....but they do make the difference for some people. 

I completely understand where you are coming from, when I was in school it was lot of ramon noodles, and whatever would get me thru the day, money is very tight for a student such as yourself, and kudos to you for budgeting your money for what's important (a lot of students seem to spend mom and dads money freely ).

 

In the end, even thou I talk about paywalls and such, I really do not always agree with them, my point was meant to be that the modder does have the right thou. The point of this was more for donations and/or paywall for early release. Also the fact the people "expect" mods to be free, when in reality a well made mod is "intellectual property " of that person, no matter what sources they use to make it. Let me just be clear one my thinking and why my opinion is the way it is:

 

A lot of people keep sayin " GASP but but but they used the creation kit, or C++, or gimp and nifscope and those programs are not there own"..Ok so how is it a Photographer can take a picture and sell it as art? They didn't create their own original camera did they? Using the argument everyone keeps using, woudnt any picture taken with a camera belong to Nikon, Sony..ect ect?

After reading that, people with think they have a light bulb pop and say " but but but the creation kit was given for free so that's not the same" which I reply, BULLSHIT..I paid for Skyrim as broken as the game is, and most mods didn't use the creation kit to start with.

 

In the end its a matter of opinion and you do make good points, all I am saying is it is not over the top thinking to think a modder should get paid for work they do. Remember that when you get out of school and get into your field of work, you put in a fifty hour week, and your boss comes forward and says " I am not paying you, because you used MY equipment to make this product, so why should I pay you since the equipment you use is not your own" Which will not happen, but that is the line of thinking people seem to have.

 

EDIT: Just fixed a couple of my typos cause I suck at typing ?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, -Caden- said:

...

Very good point of view.

[Guest]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:11 PM, CPU said:

Not exactly true.

I did pay, from my own pocket, at least three of these animators for a mod I released for free.

Now, I paid because I was consuming their time, and they did a wonderful job all of the three I paid. (Some others did the work for free, SirNibbles for example.)

 

Now, I have zero problems on money, so I am 100% OK to pay for a job done.

 

My mods are free, because I do it just for fun and only when I have time and willing to do them.

What will be my next update? What I will care to do it! I work for free, I do it with passion, I do not get any reward. So I do it when I want.

 

But people working most of the time (more than 8 hours a day including weekends) then also give for free a part of their work, the DESERVE to get compensation for whoever has some coins to spare.

They have to pay bills, and if that is their job, they should only be respected.

 

Some are abusing, and we (LLab stagff) we are chasing them out.

Some are not, so we are letting them stay.

 

Until a formal policy for "paywalling" will be published by Ashal, then the is just drama.

But not hard-drama, so I like to keep this thread going.

 

 

Well said! You make both parts of the argument. You chose to release yours for free and that is your choice,( and greatly appreciated) but also understanding that others can choose to try and make a few bucks for their time and that is ok too and someone who chooses to have a Patreon page, or even use a paywall, should not make people appreciate their work any less

[pinky6225]

On 7/1/2018 at 10:19 PM, Kimy said:

No, it doesn't. You apparently have no clue about copyright laws. You never, ever own anything unless you created it. What you buy is the right to use it. That doesn't mean you can give away copies of it. Some people call that "piracy". It's actually illegal.

Anybody remember audio tapes? what about CD's? Was definately against the copy right for us to take a audio tape, stick it in a 2 tapes boom box and turn a blank cassette into one of your favorite tunes, would imagine the same applies to anybody that ever recorded a film onto a VHS tape off the TV

 

Totally not legal, done by every single person i knew when i was a teen

 

So in theory yep giving away paid mods total no no, in practise if we are honest if you brought something and sent a friend the .rar file and they installed would anybody notice? If you went out of your way to proclaim to the world what you were doing yes people would care but outside of that i doubt it

 

P.S. i dont support piracy (other than the sort where you drink lots of rum) but i think we need to keep in mind the reality of the world we live in and how we have previously behaved with copyright's

[pinky6225]

7 minutes ago, Alkpaz said:

From what I read on copyright laws (The FBI Warning on DVDs/movies/series) is that it applies to all media (being digital/voice/etc) and can only be used against Americans. The FBI will not go after citizens in other countries. 

"Copyrighted works can include, but are not limited to, films, audio recordings, electronic media, software, books, photographs, etc. "

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft/fbi-anti-piracy-warning-seal

Yes thats sort of a given as the FBI arent the world police, for the UK the agency would be FACT https://www.fact-uk.org.uk/

 

Although i think they are also international in some country so they would be the people advertised at the start of a movie in the UK

[pinky6225]

6 minutes ago, Alkpaz said:

Does the FBI warning still exist in movies that are from the US, or does FACT place their own warning over the existing FBI one? 

Never once seen a warning regarding the FBI - from the link there program has been running for quite a long time

 

They have no jurisdiction outside of the US to my knowledge all they could potentially do is seek extradition and even then your country would have to have a extradition treaty and be willing to extradite (politically sensitive topic as the media likes to pick up stories of wrongful extradition)

 

Highly doubt anybody would jump through all those hoops for anything less than infringement on an industrial scale, the IP owner would prolly have to persue legal/criminal claims via the country its happening in

[GrimReaper]

23 hours ago, -Caden- said:

I completely understand where you are coming from, when I was in school it was lot of ramon noodles, and whatever would get me thru the day, money is very tight for a student such as yourself, and kudos to you for budgeting your money for what's important (a lot of students seem to spend mom and dads money freely ).

 

In the end, even thou I talk about paywalls and such, I really do not always agree with them, my point was meant to be that the modder does have the right thou. The point of this was more for donations and/or paywall for early release. Also the fact the people "expect" mods to be free, when in reality a well made mod is "intellectual property " of that person, no matter what sources they use to make it. Let me just be clear one my thinking and why my opinion is the way it is:

 

A lot of people keep sayin " GASP but but but they used the creation kit, or C++, or gimp and nifscope and those programs are not there own"..Ok so how is it a Photographer can take a picture and sell it as art? They didn't create their own original camera did they? Using the argument everyone keeps using, woudnt any picture taken with a camera belong to Nikon, Sony..ect ect?

After reading that, people with think they have a light bulb pop and say " but but but the creation kit was given for free so that's not the same" which I reply, BULLSHIT..I paid for Skyrim as broken as the game is, and most mods didn't use the creation kit to start with.

 

In the end its a matter of opinion and you do make good points, all I am saying is it is not over the top thinking to think a modder should get paid for work they do. Remember that when you get out of school and get into your field of work, you put in a fifty hour week, and your boss comes forward and says " I am not paying you, because you used MY equipment to make this product, so why should I pay you since the equipment you use is not your own" Which will not happen, but that is the line of thinking people seem to have.

 

EDIT: Just fixed a couple of my typos cause I suck at typing ?

The photographer has to pay for his equipment, though. And usually, the gear that's meant for professional use is bloody expensive. Now you might bring up the argument that software development has always worked that way, that some provide their work for free and allow you to do whatever with it (like blender) and that some are very specific about what you can and can't do and how much money you'll need to pay if you want to use their product for commercial use (like 3DS Max). However, the modding scene has ALWAYS (which has been a timespan of about 30 years now) been a money-free zone up until very recently and thus many people didn't make the conscious decision about monetizing their work or not because it was simply out of the question. Which lead to a naturally open modding scene where many, many projects build upon each other. It's not about the creation kit or Bethesda's generally lacking modding tools, it's about the tools other modders provide, because Bethesda made a conscious decision to provide their tools for free.

 

If you think that things automatically improve if you throw money at them, you needn't look further than the gaming industry itself. If you want the same to happen to the modding scene, well it's your choice but modding intrinsically was about getting away from the burden of having to make money.

 

And then there's the problem that a modding scene turning into a modding industry might not sit well with a lot of publishers. Money modders make isn't money they're making and that's something that just can't happen, you know? Think about how many dead franchises EA keeps hoarding. They're not making any money with them, sure, but their competition isn't as well.

 

As for your example with your boss not paying you, well. Your salary is balanced around the fact that you do not shoulder the responsibility to keep things running, you know. Which is why your boss gets way more money than you do for the same hour you both work. But hey, details, right?

 

[RitualClarity]

On 6/26/2018 at 6:53 PM, dagobaking said:

If they were forward thinking, they would facilitate a pay-market for modders where the authors get to keep nearly all or all of the proceeds rather than trying to squeeze out that much more profit so that they can grow by 610% instead of 600%.

 

 

Now that I could get much more behind than their current setup with the Creation Club. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

The photographer has to pay for his equipment, though. And usually, the gear that's meant for professional use is bloody expensive. Now you might bring up the argument that software development has always worked that way, that some provide their work for free and allow you to do whatever with it (like blender) and that some are very specific about what you can and can't do and how much money you'll need to pay if you want to use their product for commercial use (like 3DS Max). However, the modding scene has ALWAYS (which has been a timespan of about 30 years now) been a money-free zone up until very recently and thus many people didn't make the conscious decision about monetizing their work or not because it was simply out of the question. Which lead to a naturally open modding scene where many, many projects build upon each other. It's not about the creation kit or Bethesda's generally lacking modding tools, it's about the tools other modders provide, because Bethesda made a conscious decision to provide their tools for free.

 

If you think that things automatically improve if you throw money at them, you needn't look further than the gaming industry itself. If you want the same to happen to the modding scene, well it's your choice but modding intrinsically was about getting away from the burden of having to make money.

 

And then there's the problem that a modding scene turning into a modding industry might not sit well with a lot of publishers. Money modders make isn't money they're making and that's something that just can't happen, you know? Think about how many dead franchises EA keeps hoarding. They're not making any money with them, sure, but their competition isn't as well.

 

As for your example with your boss not paying you, well. Your salary is balanced around the fact that you do not shoulder the responsibility to keep things running, you know. Which is why your boss gets way more money than you do for the same hour you both work. But hey, details, right?

 

HAHA I love how people feel they  need to become condescending at the end of their post like they just had a "mic drop" moment, ok I will bite:

 

"The photographer has to pay for his equipment, though. And usually, the gear that's meant for professional use is bloody expensive."

Lets simplify everything here, So when some buys a "profession" camera it takes better photos? maybe in pixels but not always. Is the photo a photographer takes professional because of the pixels in the photo or the actually shot they got with the camera (angles, lighting ect.)? The photo itself is what is consider the profession not the camera it was shot with, whether is was a 100 dollar camera of a 4000 dollar camera doesn't matter, it is who is operating it

 

" some are very specific about what you can and can't do and how much money you'll need to pay if you want to use their product for commercial use (like 3DS Max)"

SOME being the key word there not all, but with your own words I guess if a modder has paid all that money for something like 3ds Max for commercial use then they can definitely sell their mods huh?

 

" However, the modding scene has ALWAYS (which has been a timespan of about 30 years now) been a money-free zone up until very recently and thus many people didn't make the conscious decision about monetizing their work or not because it was simply out of the question.

HMM other things that have always been free till recently, school sports, compressed air at gas stations, parking, nature parks, television..ect ect, times have changed my friend

 

"And then there's the problem that a modding scene turning into a modding industry might not sit well with a lot of publishers. Money modders make isn't money they're making and that's something that just can't happen, you know? Think about how many dead franchises EA keeps hoarding. They're not making any money with them, sure, but their competition isn't as well."

Not sure what this has to do with people thinking it is ok to donate to a modder or for a modder to have a paywall to get early release stuff? Listen you make a good point with this if we are talking about shutting down all mods and you have to to get anything, but it is UNFAIR to even think that someone time is not worth money cause you think you should have their work for free, just because a garbage company like EA does some shady shit doesn't mean the world follows

 

"As for your example with your boss not paying you, well. Your salary is balanced around the fact that you do not shoulder the responsibility to keep things running, you know. Which is why your boss gets way more money than you do for the same hour you both work. But hey, details, right?"

My favorite line of your whole post, your trying to put in a nutshell that I am a moron, so lets talk about how a business works since I have one. 

 Starting with equipment, I need welders, I can by a gas powered Campbell with a honda engine for 5000, or I can buy a Lincoln ac/dc for 600, so I buy the Lincoln, does that mean by employees or myself is going to draw a unprofessional bead on a seem? no. That's just another example of your "professional" equipment opinion

 Now why to I make more than my employees? Well on the individual job I do not, If I send someone to a job on their own, they make more than I do on that job, they are paid a higher rate for the responsibility they take to be efficient. We hire people to take responsibility and do good work. Now suddenly I have 5 jobs going at once in 5 different locations, each employee on each job makes more than I do on each single job but since I get a certain amount from each job in the end I make more. I do not make more money because I am the boss, there is a lot more to it then that

 

In the end this is how it all works out for all workers in society, we have a average life span of 73 years or 639480 hours. How many hours of your time are you willing to sell in your lifespan and for how much? How much knowledge are you willing to absorb for your time to become more valuable? Then we chose how much of our time we choose to donate for various reasons. Every hour of everyones life can be for sale, this is simplifying the whole work force engine. So if someone put 30 , 60, 90 or 1500 hours into a mod, they can choose to sell, or ask for donations for thier time in their lifespan they used to create. No ones time is worth less just because they created a mod that (in your words) " the modding scene has ALWAYS (which has been a timespan of about 30 years now) been a money-free zone up until very recently"

 

A little long winded, I apologize fur that but since I have no clue as to who you are as a real person I will give a little friendly advice, If you want to debate an opinion, stop coming across like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MadMansGun]

2 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

(which has been a timespan of about 30 years now)

50

 

[GrimReaper]

23 minutes ago, -Caden- said:

Lets simplify everything here, So when some buys a "profession" camera it takes better photos? maybe in pixels but not always. Is the photo a photographer takes professional because of the pixels in the photo or the actually shot they got with the camera (angles, lighting ect.)? The photo itself is what is consider the profession not the camera it was shot with, whether is was a 100 dollar camera of a 4000 dollar camera doesn't matter, it is who is operating it 

No, I didn't say that. You're conflating two things here, skills and tools, which are largely independent from each other. However, what you can do with your skill is limited by the tools you have available, which means a high quality camera in the hands of a highly skilled photographer will produce better results than any other combination. So yeah, a professional set-up won't make a professional out of you if you lack the necessary skills to utilize the tools you're working with. But this wasn't the point anyone made, so I don't know where that's coming from.

 

30 minutes ago, -Caden- said:

SOME being the key word there not all, but with your own words I guess if a modder has paid all that money for something like 3ds Max for commercial use then they can definitely sell their mods huh? 

The point was more that the people who made these tools made a conscious decision either for or against monetizing their work. But yeah, obviously a modder who uses 3DS Max to earn money should own the proper license for it, otherwise it'd be piracy. And not the kind of piracy where you just illegally download something for yourself, but the kind of piracy where you make a profit out of it.

 

33 minutes ago, -Caden- said:

HMM other things that have always been free till recently, school sports, compressed air at gas stations, parking, nature parks, television..ect ect, times have changed my friend

That's missing the point I made. The point was that paid modding currently uses assets and tools that were previously created under the premise that modding is free. Because modding differs from software development that it always has been free whereas normal software development has always had the option to monetize it.

38 minutes ago, -Caden- said:

Not sure what this has to do with people thinking it is ok to donate to a modder or for a modder to have a paywall to get early release stuff? Listen you make a good point with this if we are talking about shutting down all mods and you have to to get anything, but it is UNFAIR to even think that someone time is not worth money cause you think you should have their work for free, just because a garbage company like EA does some shady shit doesn't mean the world follows

To make it clear again, I'm not arguing about early access models or donations that actually deserve to be called donations. I've always been arguing against paywalls that are set up in a way that restrict access to mods or parts of the mod in question by being locked behind a required amount of money indefinitely. I brought up EA because companies that are interested in making money don't like it when someone else makes money with their property. Bethesda can't monetize adult mods for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean that they like it when someone else does.

 

49 minutes ago, -Caden- said:

I do not make more money because I am the boss, there is a lot more to it then that

I didn't say that. I said a boss earns more because he or she shoulders the responsibility to keep things running, not because he's the boss.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

No, I didn't say that. You're conflating two things here, skills and tools, which are largely independent from each other. However, what you can do with your skill is limited by the tools you have available, which means a high quality camera in the hands of a highly skilled photographer will produce better results than any other combination. So yeah, a professional set-up won't make a professional out of you if you lack the necessary skills to utilize the tools you're working with. But this wasn't the point anyone made, so I don't know where that's coming from.

 

The point was more that the people who made these tools made a conscious decision either for or against monetizing their work. But yeah, obviously a modder who uses 3DS Max to earn money should own the proper license for it, otherwise it'd be piracy. And not the kind of piracy where you just illegally download something for yourself, but the kind of piracy where you make a profit out of it.

 

That's missing the point I made. The point was that paid modding currently uses assets and tools that were previously created under the premise that modding is free. Because modding differs from software development that it always has been free whereas normal software development has always had the option to monetize it.

To make it clear again, I'm not arguing about early access models or donations that actually deserve to be called donations. I've always been arguing against paywalls that are set up in a way that restrict access to mods or parts of the mod in question by being locked behind a required amount of money indefinitely. I brought up EA because companies that are interested in making money don't like it when someone else makes money with their property. Bethesda can't monetize adult mods for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean that they like it when someone else does.

 

I didn't say that. I said a boss earns more because he or she shoulders the responsibility to keep things running, not because he's the boss.

Without quoting each others post back and fourth and us making a full length novel out of this, for any points I took wrong that you are making I do apologize, Guess I am just reading them differently, the only thing I see here that I am unsure of is "paid modding currently uses assets and tools that were previously created under the premise that modding is free"

 I ask this without sarcasm cause I actually do not know, Is that in the actually release of the free software or is it a unwritten rule?

 

 This whole post was started on my opinion of paid mods, and I guess I should have been more clear on my opinion, when I say paid mods, I mean donations and choosing to pay for early release, full paid mods would fail I agree because few people have the skills for true DLC style mods and some do not ( I know that I do not have those skills)

 

Looking at the mods thou, certain mods if you I had the option, to buy Dragonborn DLC, Hearthfires, Dawnguard, Sexlab, OSA and Osex, Devious devices, many different Animations ( and of course there are many more mods that can be added to this list) but what I am saying is if we take to word "mod" out of the question and just have a list of great DLCs all listed at a price, do you think that Hearthfires would outsell Sexlab or OSA? or and of the official DLCS for that matter? Without getting long winded again I hope you see where I am going with that. Without the title mod, many peoples creation would definitely outsell Bethesda's DLCs if they were release as a DLC

[Kaldor Draigo]

i dont believe in modders getting paid for the mods they make since mods are free i see no reason to pay someone to mod, thats where i lean and there are other people who agree me out there to

[GrimReaper]

32 minutes ago, -Caden- said:

Without quoting each others post back and fourth and us making a full length novel out of this, for any points I took wrong that you are making I do apologize, Guess I am just reading them differently, the only thing I see here that I am unsure of is "paid modding currently uses assets and tools that were previously created under the premise that modding is free"

 I ask this without sarcasm cause I actually do not know, Is that in the actually release of the free software or is it a unwritten rule?

 

 This whole post was started on my opinion of paid mods, and I guess I should have been more clear on my opinion, when I say paid mods, I mean donations and choosing to pay for early release, full paid mods would fail I agree because few people have the skills for true DLC style mods and some do not ( I know that I do not have those skills)

 

Looking at the mods thou, certain mods if you I had the option, to buy Dragonborn DLC, Hearthfires, Dawnguard, Sexlab, OSA and Osex, Devious devices, many different Animations ( and of course there are many more mods that can be added to this list) but what I am saying is if we take to word "mod" out of the question and just have a list of great DLCs all listed at a price, do you think that Hearthfires would outsell Sexlab or OSA? or and of the official DLCS for that matter? Without getting long winded again I hope you see where I am going with that. Without the title mod, many peoples creation would definitely outsell Bethesda's DLCs if they were release as a DLC

Appreciate the no to the quote war, really do.

 

Anyway, as to your question, I think it's difficult to answer because most mods for Skyrim were build with open-endedness in mind, which is something you want to avoid when the goal is to get money out of it. I think a fully monetized modding community would look vastly different than what we currently have, but I digress. The problem with mods that need other mods as a foundation is that you limit the amount of customers by the amount of customers that either already own all the prerequisites or are willing to buy them specifically for your mod. The big advantage Hearthfire has over Sexlab is that Hearthfire is entirely self-contained, you only need Skyrim and you're good to go. With Sexlab, there are many things you directly and indirectly need to be able to use it. You'd need SKSE, FNIS, SkyUI, a custom skeleton and while technically not a hard requirement, you'd also need a nude female and a nude male body replacer unless it's your fetish to watch ugly vanilla bodies in underwear rubbing against each other. Then you'd need some of the addons that utilize Sexlab, the most basic one being Sexlab matchmaker so you can equip spells to trigger sex scenes. And then you also need animation packs, if you want creature action you'd need Nasty Critters and the list goes on and on.

 

The problem is, like I've already said, that each part of the chain limits your potential customer base, so instead of making a mod that would require a huge investment from the customer (i.e. owning all of the mods mentioned above) just to be able to get Sexlab running, not to mention the mods you need on top of Sexlab to be actually able to see some action in the gamem why not make an armor or weapon that would require much less effort and would reach a bigger audience to boot.