Paid Modding is gone... or is it?

[bjornk]

 

 

 

 

Bethesda sabotaging existing Skyrim game installs, etc.  I doubt they will pander it as a 'new game' that people will have to buy.  They will simply hi-jack what people already have.

It's certainly not impossible. With a sneaky Steam update, they might replace existing installations with the "remastered" version and a new EULA.

 

 

Actually they're legally obligated to keep the original version.

 

See: Unreal, DooM, Witcher, Mass Effect.

 

They might release it as a "version" of Skyrim for people who already have it and in that case, your Steam client will update your game to the new "remastered" version. From 1.9.32 to version 2.0.0 perhaps.

 

They might also remove the LE from Steam completely and replace it with the remastered version.

 

 

 

Actually they're legally obligated to keep the original version.

 

They are *NOT*, otherwise you'd still be playing Skyrim version 1.0 (or whatever the initial version was). See The Witcher -> The Witcher Enhanced Editon -> The Witcher EE Director's Cut. If they are obligated to keep the original version then where is The Witcher, the original release?

[GrimReaper]

So the team that makes nifscripts/niftools could start charging to use their patch since it's a essential tool to get nifs to import and export into blender. Seriously, why would I sit there and work on a plugin/patch for free for others to use as a means of benefit to making money? I might as well sell it for a very reasonable price.

 

To be honest I don't know if you could make money by providing extensions/modifcations to blender because I have no idea how their licensing works. Maybe you can, but my guess would be you can't. Either way, it would certainly be worse for the general morale of people working their asses off so others can enjoy some quick cash grabs.

 

It would also be fun if the people providing the basics like bodies and skeletons would simply decide that none of their work may be used in paid mods, quickly showing the loudmouths who support paid modding their place. I believe that's what happened to chesko with his fishing mod, because fore showed him how dependant he is on FNIS and how little work he actually did in comparison, shooting down the claim that the fishing mod was entirely chesko's to sell because he made it. Turns out that without FNIS, chesko had just a bunch of files he couldn't get into the game on his own.

[Guest endgameaddiction]

I don't think it's possible to sell since Blender itself is under GNU like GIMP is. However, I don't know enough information on that myself to be certain. I do know that I've never seen any Blender/GIMP extensions with a price tag.

[27X]

 

 

 

 

 

Bethesda sabotaging existing Skyrim game installs, etc.  I doubt they will pander it as a 'new game' that people will have to buy.  They will simply hi-jack what people already have.

It's certainly not impossible. With a sneaky Steam update, they might replace existing installations with the "remastered" version and a new EULA.

 

 

Actually they're legally obligated to keep the original version.

 

See: Unreal, DooM, Witcher, Mass Effect.

 

They might release it as a "version" of Skyrim for people who already have it and in that case, your Steam client will update your game to the new "remastered" version. From 1.9.32 to version 2.0.0 perhaps.

 

They might also remove the LE from Steam completely and replace it with the remastered version.

 

 

 

Actually they're legally obligated to keep the original version.

 

They are *NOT*, otherwise you'd still be playing Skyrim version 1.0 (or whatever the initial version was). See The Witcher -> The Witcher Enhanced Editon -> The Witcher EE Director's Cut. If they are obligated to keep the original version then where is The Witcher, the original release?

 

 

The Witcher EE IS the witcher. It's the same SKU, has the same CDPR product number and is the same collection of code with an update.

 

As stated, look as Doom. The BFG edition is separate release, with a different code base, and is sold separately. The key word here is legal. If someone legally petitioned Valve, they would in fact have to provide a means to download the original version of the Witcher. Newell has already talked about this. It is perfectly within customer rights to legally petition for a specific version of the software if it is found that the update is detrimental in some form or fashion.

 

In the case you mentioned the opposite happened, just as it did in TW3, where the product update contains fixes and optimization.

 

A 64 bit Skyrim is literally a different Skyrim, it by literal definition has a different executable and is therefore a different SKU, and is therefore not just "an update". Bethesda already tried this with Doom III, and it did not work. It's the same thing here.

I don't think it's possible to sell since Blender itself is under GNU like GIMP is. However, I don't know enough information on that myself to be certain. I do know that I've never seen any Blender/GIMP extensions with a price tag.

 

https://cgcookiemarkets.com/2015/09/16/how-to-make-money-with-blender-selling-assets-and-addons/?PageSpeed=noscript

[Kendo 2]

They are *NOT*, otherwise you'd still be playing Skyrim version 1.0 (or whatever the initial version was).

4 November 2015

I launch Skyrim to play and Steam redirects the game and forces it into compatibility mode.  In other words, the game refuses to launch.  I look on-line for a fix and I discover that I must update Steam.  Dumb ass that I am, I allow the update.

Once the update is done I launch the game again, and it crashes at the splash screen.  My first thought is I have an esp active that requires an esm I don't have loaded.  After snooping around that isn't the case.

My next step is looking at my ini files since I now from past experience a game update will sometimes revert them back to their original state.  I search my Skyrim program files folder by date modified and low and behold all of the configs had been updated along with the Steam_api.dll.

That was odd because the last time I updated Skyrim was for the Hearthfire DLC several months before and there hadn't been any announcements about game updates anywhere.

 

What Really Happened?

Zenimax/Bethesda and Valve/Steam colluded and forced a game update that didn't go through the normal game updating procedure.  Why?  They changed the EULA of the Skyrim Creation Kit to allow for the software changes made for monetized modding on Steam.  Not only did they modify licensed software I already had installed, but they also changed the licensing itself.  THAT is illegal.  I wasn't given prior notice, I wasn't given to opportunity to refuse the update to my game and Bethesda violated U.S. licensing code with the help of Steam.  The two of them added game altering software under the guise of a Steam update.  No other files in the Steam directory were changed on 4 November 2015, only the files for Skyrim.

 

Conclusion

If Bethesda does indeed decide to do a 'Skyrim Remastered' version that will encompass the game into Bethesda.net they have already demonstrated they have the means to do it and the lack of business ethics to justify it.  That is, if the 'remastered' version stays in a 32bit format.

 

Note

If they had done this sort of thing to me is a business setting I'd sue the fuck out of them and they's lose.  The case wouldn't make it past litigation before they started writing me a check.  Legally you cannot alter a product I have an existing license for without my consent and you certainly can't change the license itself to cover your tracks.  In the right setting and circumstance I could probably get the States Attorney General's Office to press criminal charges for obstruction, since both Zenimax and Valve violated U.S legal code and then tried to hide the fact.  I'd also start contacting other vendors to see if the same thing happened to them.  If it did, say hello to a class action lawsuit, Bethesda.  And I'd report them to their state's AG office, their local BBB and the FTC just for fucking with me.  With a both a civil case and a possible criminal investigation pending you're goddamned right they'd want to settle out of court to make it all go away.

[bjornk]

The Witcher EE IS the witcher. It's the same SKU, has the same CDPR product number and is the same collection of code with an update.

And what makes you think a "remastered" Skyrim would be any different? The same thing happened with The Witcher 2. All previous versions have been upgraded to the "Enhanced Edition". Let me remind you that it was you who chose "The Witcher" as an example.

 

A 64 bit Skyrim is literally a different Skyrim, it by literal definition has a different executable and is therefore a different SKU, and is therefore not just "an update".

So they can't just add a new 64-bit executable along with a 32-bit one in "just an update"?

[27X]

 

The Witcher EE IS the witcher. It's the same SKU, has the same CDPR product number and is the same collection of code with an update.

And what makes you think a "remastered" Skyrim would be any different? The same thing happened with The Witcher 2. All previous versions have been upgraded to the "Enhanced Edition".

 

A 64 bit Skyrim is literally a different Skyrim, it by literal definition has a different executable and is therefore a different SKU, and is therefore not just "an update".

So they can't just add a new 64-bit executable along with a 32-bit one in "just an update"?

 

 

If you click on the requirements page you'll note there is Windows XP.

 

They can make a dual executable like AvP2010 is, but they cannot legally overwrite an existing product with a new one. A 64bit recompile with a new executable is not 1.9 by any legal definition.

 

OS:

Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)

[bjornk]

They can make a dual executable like AvP2010 is, but they cannot legally overwrite an existing product with a new one.

They sure can. Technically it would be an "enhanced version", now with 64-bit support.

[Kendo 2]

Fun Fact:  FO4 doesn't require a 64bit OS to run.

 

With enough memory, RAM and a beefy video card FO4 works just fine on low to medium settings on a 32bit OS.  The only reason they have a 64bit OS as a 'requirement' is because the game is poorly optimized (that's a serious understatement) and for the most part only uses one core.  'Skyrim Remastered' doesn't necessarily need to be a 'new game' with it's own install directory.  It could literally be Skyrim v1.9 and it would 'require' a 64bit OS.  That version would run like hammered dog shit on a 32bit OS but it could run.

The question is would they force the updated version and simply change the existing EULA or would they leave it as an option.

 

If Bethesda does make 'Skyrim Remastered' there's going to be some hard qualifiers for me to use it.  It can't have the same retarded EULA as FO4 and it can't force Bethesda.net on me.  Other considerations are more DLCs above and beyond what is already available for Skyrim.  They are fucked in the head if they think I'm going to lay out money for a FO4-style Skyrim without new stuff to do in the game.  If I'm going to have to suffer all of the bugs and glitches and other Bethesda bullshit just to see Skyrim in 64bit they need to get their collective shit together and entice me.

 

Something else to consider is the Skyrim mods available now and what will happen to them if Skyrim 64bit actually happens.  Will there be a big mod stealing grab like there was for FO3 to NewVegas?  Will 32bit Skyrim mods be hi-jacked and uploaded to Bethesda.net?  Will FNIS work on a 64bit Skyrim or will the code be changed in a way to make it incompatible?  Who here really wants to hassle with yet another finicky Skyrim install but this time on a FO4-style shit platform?  Is anyone really willing to do that without new DCLs; just so they can see Skyrim in all its 64bit crap-Bethesda glory?

[27X]

 

They can make a dual executable like AvP2010 is, but they cannot legally overwrite an existing product with a new one.

They sure can. Technically it would be an "enhanced version", now with 64-bit support.

 

 

And they still have to offer the original. Legally.

[Gameplayer]

Skywind?

SkyOblivion?

Beyong Skyrim?

 

Uh oohhhh what?  The hell will happen?

 

So if it goes forced 64-bit I imagine at the very least that'd mean that these projects would be effected negatively by this change.

[GrimReaper]

https://community.bethesda.net/message/125193#125193

 

Yeah bethesda, that will surely work. Instead of regulating what happens on your AMAZING new platform, let the lawsuits deal with it.

 

They'll kill their own platform with it. Mods being stolen and uploaded for consoles that aren't optimized for them because thieves most likely have no idea what they're doing and will simply grab a PC mod and upload it on bethesda.net will create massive problems for the users and eventually will lead to the conclusion that people don't trust bethesda.net as a stable and safe environment to download mods for their games.

 

 

[Kendo 2]

“ZeniMax may, but is not obligated to, follow similar procedures if it removes or disables any Content that purportedly constitutes infringement or misappropriation of any Intellectual Property Rights other than copyrights."

 

So basically if a mod thief uploads material protected by an existing non-Bethesda license they ARE obligated to remove it.  But if someone uploads original content not protected by any sort of license then maybe they will and maybe they won't.  That complaint system doesn't really address 'mod theft' as we all understand it.  If you make a conversion of a vanilla armor and someone steals it and uploads it to Bethesda.net they aren't obliged to do anything about it...since they own the original meshes anyway.  And since they are sticking this sort of thing under DMAC guidelines that also means there's the opportunity of fair use and mod thieves can appeal based on that alone.

 

Their official complaint system won't stop or dissuade mod theft in the least, since it only addresses people uploading digital media they don't have the license for.  Probably 90% of what we consider 'mods' (armor conversions, retextures, scripts, etc.) is fair game.

[Allannaa]

I personally don't want money from the "end user" for my meshes or textures.  I do what I do primarily for my own gameplay, and that of my friends and family.  Any mod I release is released simply to share.


Yes, I spent money on Poser, Photoshop, Lightwave, and 3DS.  Yes, I spent money going back to school to learn that software.  Yes, I spent time (time taken away from farming and from writing) to learn and practise with those programs (as well as NifSkope, Blender, GIMP, and others) over the years.  But that was MY choice.  No one made me do it, and I never took food out of my kids' mouths to do it, and although I'm satisfied with my own artwork in general, I never tried to use it as my sole source of income, in part because such things are so unpredictable and people's tastes vary so widely.  I made damned good and sure there was food on the table and a roof over that table, with a career I KNEW paid, and never expected art in any form to feed my family.  (Not well, but it paid.  And pay was only part of why I chose a military career, but that's another rant.)


I also don't mind, and am flattered, when someone asks to use a mesh or texture I created in their own work, provided I'm given credit for the asset in question.  To me, that means the person liked the thing, and that it provided something they wanted, but might not have been able to learn to make on their own.


What I DO NOT want and DO mind, is for Bethesda to take my assets, made by me from start to finish, without acknowledgement or credit of my work, and then package them with game content, without my permission, and call it "theirs" -- and thereby make money from my time and effort, even if they throw me a bone by giving me a penny or two here and there -- when they've charged the gamer several un-refundable dollars for it.


And yes, I do mean unrefundable.  The uproar over the Steam mods?  Yeah, turns out no money was refunded; credit was simply applied to Steam Wallets, which means, it was never refunded.  Store credit my ass; you have only one product I want, and I ALREADY bought it.  I've never forgotten Arthmoor's post when he found out what they were doing to people who bought his mods in good faith.  (Poor Art, his name gets thrown around TES so often....)


(I loathe Steam/Valve with a passion only marginally smaller than the hatred I have of spiders.  And I completely disagree that bullspit like Steam prevents piracy of a given game; absolutely NOTHING can truly prevent piracy.  (But that's yet another rant.))


My work is freaking well NOT theirs.  My work is MY work.  I don't want profit from it, but I don't want THEM profiting from something I created, regardless of whether I chose to sell it or give it away.


As someone mentioned, Hearthfires DLC is a superb example of this.  The person who originally created what became Hearthfires had made the token system, the art involved in the "marking out" of the house, the scripting for building, the concept of using the workbenches for construction, and so on.


Bethesda stole it.  Flat out.  That modder was never paid for the assets they took.  Small changes were made to his meshes and textures so that a claim against them for theft would/could be "reasonably" denied.  Claims of script theft, for lack of a better term, are even more nebulous, because Papyrus is what it is, and works the way it works -- so any ten people trying to accomplish the same end (say, making your horse come to you when you whistle) are going to end up basically writing the same thing; they have no choice, because of how Papyrus functions.


If any of US did that, it would be considered theft, piracy, or copyright violation (or possibly all three).


As to the argument that (paraphrasing) if a modder thinks s/he is so great, then s/he should just get hired in the industry -- there speaks a total idiot.


The gaming industry is incredibly difficult to break into, whether you are a developer, a voice actress, a texture artist, a scripter, a storyboarder, or anything else.  Telling modders to "just get a job doing it" is unbelievably stupid.  That's the equivalent of telling a double amputee to just get up and walk, if he doesn't like his wheelchair.


Paid modding is a thing.  It's going to rear its ugly profit-driven head from time to time.  Our best response as modders is to make our assets or mods available privately, on sites such as this one.  Our best response as consumers of modded content is to refuse to purchase mods, not as a slap at the modder, but as a protest to the company.


Not that either thing will bother Bethesda.  As long as the money rolls in, they're happy, and they don't much care where the money comes form, nor do they care to exhibit any sense of integrity regarding the subject.


But that's just the way the world works.  The golden rule -- The person with the most gold makes the rules, and hires more lawyers with that gold.


Accept it, get over it, move on, and play Skyrim (or Fallout, or whatever), and enjoy it.


 

[DixiePig]

As someone mentioned, Hearthfires DLC is a superb example of this.  The person who originally created what became Hearthfires had made the token system, the art involved in the "marking out" of the house, the scripting for building, the concept of using the workbenches for construction, and so on.

 

 

Bethesda stole it.  Flat out.  That modder was never paid for the assets they took.  Small changes were made to his meshes and textures so that a claim against them for theft would/could be "reasonably" denied.  Claims of script theft, for lack of a better term, are even more nebulous, because Papyrus is what it is, and works the way it works -- so any ten people trying to accomplish the same end (say, making your horse come to you when you whistle) are going to end up basically writing the same thing; they have no choice, because of how Papyrus functions.

 

 

If any of US did that, it would be considered theft, piracy, or copyright violation (or possibly all three).

 

 

Do you know where I can find more info on this?

[ousnius]

Ever thought about that the remastered Skyrim might only have little changes and be for XBOX One and PS4 only?

However I do think they would want to use Bethesda.net for it.

[canderes]

Skyrim: Game Jam Edition 2016
 

Now including all the shit that should have been in there to begin with, but wasn't due to 360\PS3 resource limitations.

 

Now get ready to be swindled by Todd\Bethesda again as they sell you the same game a second time; yes you will pay full price for it again.

[Antrox]

I'd rather get several different cancers then have to deal with fucking paid modding again in my opinion...

[bjornk]

 

 

They can make a dual executable like AvP2010 is, but they cannot legally overwrite an existing product with a new one.

They sure can. Technically it would be an "enhanced version", now with 64-bit support.

 

 

And they still have to offer the original. Legally.

 

No, because *legally* it is still the same game, even though technically it's an upgraded one. This is why they don't keep offering the original versions for The Witcher I & II and many other games that got patched numerous times after their original release. Despite the potential incompatibility issues, such as save or mod incompatibilities, Steam has no such obligation, in fact, it's very likely that they have no control on the content offered to the customer. They sell (or rather rent) games *as is*.

[Kendo 2]

That's true as far as Witcher 1 and 2 go.  The only versions available are the later enhanced ones.  Not that I'm complaining.  Huge Witcher fan. 

[DocClox]

Another interesting tidbit: there's a reddit poster says they've spotted an unnamed and currently hidden Skyrim DLC in the Steam database. I don't know a lot about Steam internals, but the poster supplies a link and screeny.

 

So, hypothetically... if a "Remastered" edition for consoles is in the works. they might offer a DLC so that existing steam customers could have the same improvements. And if they did that, they could presumably require a separate EULA for the new content.

 

Just a thought.

[Kendo 2]

After finishing Wild Hunt and seeing the depth and scope of what an RPG can be when compared to what Bethesda does, ANYTHING new they make for Skyrim had better be over-the-top-insane-good.  It is like being fed frozen fish sticks and boxed macaroni and cheese your whole life and then discovering something called 'steak'.  You'd feel cheated for not having steak before.  That's the way I look at Bethesda after getting fucked by FO4.

 

From the Steam App page linked on reddit. "If you see someone screenshot a page like this and add some information/images on it, it is most likely fake."     Whudever, Gabe.

[bjornk]

Huge Witcher fan. 

Then you should buy your games on GOG and support Cyberpunk 2077!

[Sacremas]

The whole mod theft thing going on is getting some press (well youtube press, but TBH that's more distributed than traditional press), with a pretty good rundown overall.

 

[rahrahrah]

The whole mod theft thing going on is getting some press (well youtube press, but TBH that's more distributed than traditional press), with a pretty good rundown overall.

 

 

I'm loving the whole "not in my back yard!!" angle to this.