"Opening up Arma 3 to paid user-made content" - How?

[chrisb 196]

Ask yourself why chrisBs all powerful Kai mod was never released despite his protestations of how advanced it is lol

I would be interested in knowing why you think it wasn't released.

Also I would point out it isn't mine, but that doesn't detract from hearing your reasons as to why. I certainly know why it wasn't released when it first appeared.

[Macser 776]

@CosmiC10R

I'm not fond of society.I like people though.And people have the potential for good and bad.

I know that because I see it,and experience it.I'm not an isolated case.

@Probad

There's valid concerns being voiced on either side.

@Chairborne

I see people being passionate about their opinions.That's all.I haven't seen anything like the abuse

people have been throwing around elsewhere on the net.

As for sharing with the "competition".I see that happen all the time in daily life.Small companies

sharing information and techniques.Even lending each other equipment if needed.These are things

I've personally witnessed,experienced and partaken in.Even though they may be in the same business.

I suppose it depends on the people.And there's a difference between rivalry and dislike.It's far more

likely you won't help someone you don't like.Maybe someone who actively goes out of their way to cause you problems,or obstruct you.

But it is possible to respect someone you're competitive with.

[cosmic10r 2320]

@CosmiC10R

I'm not fond of society.I like people though.And people have the potential for good and bad.

I know that because I see it,and experience it.I'm not an isolated case.

@Probad

There's valid concerns being voiced on either side.

@Chairborne

I see people being passionate about their opinions.That's all.I haven't seen anything like the abuse

people have been throwing around elsewhere on the net.

As for sharing with the "competition".I see that happen all the time in daily life.Small companies

sharing information and techniques.Even lending each other equipment if needed.These are things

I've personally witnessed,experienced and partaken in.Even though they may be in the same business.

I suppose it depends on the people.And there's a difference between rivalry and dislike.It's far more

likely you won't help someone you don't like.Maybe someone who actively goes out of their way to cause you problems,or obstruct you.

But it is possible to respect someone you're competitive with.

I agree with all of that too. I like to help people too... sometimes when it isn't directly in my interests. I have also seen the upside and downside to it as well...

I think the real concern for me is that we have that great culture and camaraderie in this forum more so then others I have been on. I have a tremendous amount of difficulty seeing how a monetized system would be better than what we have... honestly

I'm just gonna say it...

This is the best gaming community I have ever seen in 20 years of gaming and I don't want to see it ruined by something as trivial as money.

While a small percentage may benefit... I believe the larger community would lose as a whole...

I feel like the 80 percent who help and 20 percent who take advantage could be reversed... and we don't know... you may be totally right... I only ask because as we stand now... it's pretty great... do we really want to jeopardize that on the chance... that it might be ok? and if we do and it sucks... is it even possible to get it back...

So really is it worth losing what we have, for what I perceive to be a minuscule benefit even if all goes well.

Edited April 25, 2015 by CosmiC10R

[Biostalker 1]

I think TotalBiscuit did a good job balancing why shouldn't modders get paid versus why should valve take 75% of the cut in the Skyrim situation. Don't have to be a leecher to recognize the insane travails that await. Who modderates/curates. Stolen mods? Lawsuits from 3rd parties. This has trouble written all over it. DMCA takedowns. Beyond how it changes Arma, this is a huge deal for gamers around the globe. Missing my physical copies of games just a little more today.

[kireta21 13]

As for sharing with the "competition".I see that happen all the time in daily life.Small companies

sharing information and techniques.Even lending each other equipment if needed.These are things

I've personally witnessed,experienced and partaken in.Even though they may be in the same business.

I think "competition" isn't that much issue here, since I'm pretty sure most ArmA modders, beign here around since ArmA2 if not OFP would ignore steam workshop, or treat it simply as additional mirror as they did untill now.

Problem is expected inflow of people looking for quick buck. Those who plain ask you for some of your "magic" to use it in mods are lesser issue, since it's up to you if you give it or not. Much worse issue will be people who would outright upload your mods or parts of them to workshop under their names and ask money for it. And knowing workshop's record till now, it will be damn near impossible to take such mod down.

Maybe you are kind of guy who will just say "whatever" and ignore it, but I don't think many people will take it that calmly.

[sttosin 67]

I read this article this morning not knowing it's already knocking on Arma's door. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/04/24/valves-paid-skyrim-mods-are-a-legal-ethical-and-creative-disaster/

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

One sad downside is how newcomers will/may be perceived as looking to make a quick buck. As someone who just signed up for a forum account after A3 alpha....even though I owned/played A2 and it's dlcs and now make missions and at least one mod...that kind of environment wold suck.

[pd3 25]

All I hear in here are a bunch of leeches breaking into tears over the thought of their free lunches going away.

Admit it, you can come up with 1000 different excuses in the name of Humanity and Community and Welfare and all these feelgood ideas but at the end of the day you're just thinking about your own wallet and how you wouldn't like to have to pay a dime for the effort everyone else has to go to.

You think you're cynical? Then you should know better -- everything good in this world has to be paid for in blood and tears, and money is the least painful substitute.

Otherwise you're all filthy hypocrites.

It's a complex situation, and as much as I absolutely loathe the anti-capitalist slimeballs who are whining that high quality content might not be free anymore. I also believe that such a scheme needs to be handled very carefully.

As one person on reddit mentioned, as he perceived it, the current arrangement encourages people to barf up low-effort content and charge for it, that is neither good for the parent developer of the game, or the end user community.

I personally think developers of the games themselves should have some level of curation rights as to who gets to monetize based on how it reflects upon THEIR product. People can baww about how that's unfair, but life isn't fair and some people demonstrate more effort than others. Adults generally realize this.

People who have put hundreds of hours into content they've made that bridges the gap between "hobbyist" and professional made content - in my opinion have a great case to merit some level of compensation.

The question is, how do we do this without fucking everything else up? And by that I mean, keeping the addon community relatively open and keeping the game as unconstrained as possible.

Anyone childish enough to think that people who pour copious amount of skill and time into content development, should "do it for free" and continue to do so when they could justifiably get something for their efforts, is not worth talking to.

Those people have no respect at all for the efforts of others, and want to keep the gravy train rolling. I personally don't want the format of Arma to change in terms of it's accessibility for modding. However I would like to see people who have put serious effort into this community, have a reason to stick around and continue to do so. It's only fair.

[nodunit 397]

It's a complex situation, and as much as I absolutely loathe the anti-capitalist slimeballs who are whining that high quality content might not be free anymore. I also believe that such a scheme needs to be handled very carefully.

As one person on reddit mentioned, as he perceived it, the current arrangement encourages people to barf up low-effort content and charge for it, that is neither good for the parent developer of the game, or the end user community.

I personally think developers of the games themselves should have some level of curation rights as to who gets to monetize based on how it reflects upon THEIR product. People can baww about how that's unfair, but life isn't fair and some people demonstrate more effort than others. Adults generally realize this.

People who have put hundreds of hours into content they've made that bridges the gap between "hobbyist" and professional made content - in my opinion have a great case to merit some level of compensation.

The question is, how do we do this without fucking everything else up? And by that I mean, keeping the addon community relatively open and keeping the game as unconstrained as possible.

Anyone childish enough to think that people who pour copious amount of skill and time into content development, should "do it for free" and continue to do so when they could justifiably get something for their efforts, is not worth talking to.

Those people have no respect at all for the efforts of others, and want to keep the gravy train rolling. I personally don't want the format of Arma to change in terms of it's accessibility for modding. However I would like to see people who have put serious effort into this community, have a reason to stick around and continue to do so. It's only fair.

There are things such as patreon but it wouldn't work for everyone, it would require a very active person as in on a daily basis, and it would be easy for a not so honest modder to take advantage of it by posting some pictures and then sitting back as supporters pay on a monthly basis. It is used a great deal by artists of all sorts, of course by doing this you are putting yourself at the whims of others and you would need to find incentives up to the point of letting others decide what your next project will be.

The other is the simplest, donations to the author and I think that should be carefully read, donations to the author, NOT to the addon.

This of course has its drawbacks as well but ultimately puts the power in the consumers hands, if they play something and enjoy it then they might give you money.

For modders it also gives a bit of breather room because you are donating to the author, not for the content which would be the difference of paying for something on a store vs donation.

Of course there are no garuntees but would you rather have a system where people donate to you and not your product, they pay what they want (humble bundle style), you aren't taking from third party, you aren't purposely selling someone elses mod/addon, and you aren't stepping into trademark and copyright law territory because you are selling something that is owned by someone else.

[pd3 25]

I am a fairly big supporter of the "donation model" as it were, as I have donated not insignificantly myself in the past.

Ultimately, I think that trying to beat any sort of monetization model with a hammer "until it fits" will ultimately be a poor way to go, and so if nothing else there is the opportunity to make donations.

With regard to other more structured systems, it's a pretty hairy issue. I do think that not every addon developer will want to pursue a one-size-fits-all model in that respect.

As somebody who has been programming small quake-C mods back in 1997 and thereon to Quake 2 and other games over the years, I can say that mods and addons have dramatically increased in quality and scope, and those wishing for the passage of time to not adapt to that are probably in for a rude awakening.

That being said, I generally like BI and I like the community, and most of the people involved seem like decent people who care about what goes in to it.

I would if only for the sake of the people who put in significant effort, see some sort of reward for it, no matter what that might be, many people in this community deserve it.

[Macser 776]

Donations are historically a hit and miss affair.

But given the response to the current setup for Skyrim,it might make the idea of donations more appealing to modders and users alike.Perhaps people will be more willing to actually throw a few cents to the author,where they didn't before.

[nodunit 397]

According to this http://i.imgur.com/VdHg4dG.png it is Bathesda that has decided on the 75% or so cut, not steam. Nonethleless we shouldn't just sit idle on it, but we should also keep in mind that this would potentially effect more than just us, and don't fool yourselves people...we can try to be the nicest people to one another but do not discount the possibility that what was once a sea of fish could turn into a lake of sharks.

Be it sharks that play one another, or sharks that bully another author because they put their content on sale, or became this guy http://i.4cdn.org/v/1429952656706.png

If you think the AAA industry has some questionable ethics and nickle and diming then wait until you see what can happen when everyone can make money off of these things...just consider early access, and greenlight, and then consider that coming to a storefront.

[ofpsince06 11]

All I hear in here are a bunch of leeches breaking into tears over the thought of their free lunches going away.

Admit it, you can come up with 1000 different excuses in the name of Humanity and Community and Welfare and all these feelgood ideas but at the end of the day you're just thinking about your own wallet and how you wouldn't like to have to pay a dime for the effort everyone else has to go to.

You think you're cynical? Then you should know better -- everything good in this world has to be paid for in blood and tears, and money is the least painful substitute.

Otherwise you're all filthy hypocrites.

Way to miss the fucking point, genius.

And you damn well know I will vote with my wallet. Mods have ALWAYS been free. Every since gaming began. Why the fuck would you change that? Why would I pay hundreds of dollars across all of my games to play mods that have always been free?

Donations are fine. Paid mods are not. Fucking think for a second. I have tens of mods for almost each of my single player games. I will not be nickled and dimed by amateur creations that don't have the possibility of being compatible with each other. They also have no guarantee of continued support.

There is a distinct difference between professional developed DLC and expansion packs with maintained development studio sanctioned textures and scripts and then amateur mods.

All of the supporters of this are so short sighted that it hurts. You're just thinking of your precious little niche game and think that there will only be a tiny amount of quality mods that are somehow now going to maintain thorough standards. You're not thinking about the cost of buying mods throughout every game you own. That is potentially thousands of dollars to just play mods on all of my games. Fuck that shit.

[Macser 776]

@Nodunit

Valve are perfectly willing to facilitate it though.

The Skyrim debacle is the pilot episode in this melodrama.

Everyone who thinks they can make a few quick quid is going to give it a go.

I've seen that elsewhere.But why would they remain if people refuse to buy what

they put up?

This "experiment" is not a surprise.It was conceived well in advance of the announcements.

I say "experiment",because it may not actually work.If people don't buy anything it can't.

I'm quite sure BI is taking notes.

Just because you can make money,doesn't always mean you will.

I don't know if the "nice" reference was meant for me.Maybe I come across that way.

I get angry up to a point.Then I realise,"wait a sec.It's just a fucking video game". :)

[nodunit 397]

@Nodunit

Valve are perfectly willing to facilitate it though.

The Skyrim debacle is the pilot episode in this melodrama.

Everyone who thinks they can make a few quick quid is going to give it a go.

I've seen that elsewhere.But why would they remain if people refuse to buy what

they put up?

This "experiment" is not a surprise.It was conceived well in advance of the announcements.

I say "experiment",because it may not actually work.If people don't buy anything it can't.

I'm quite sure BI is taking notes.

Just because you can make money,doesn't always mean you will.

I don't know if the "nice" reference was meant for me.Maybe I come across that way.

I get angry up to a point.Then I realise,"wait a sec.It's just a fucking video game". :)

It was an experiment, literally.

http://www.reddit.com/r/skyrimmods/comments/33qcaj/the_experiment_has_failed_my_exit_from_the/

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/

And to the people like Probad, you should consider there being some merit to these discussion when the MOD MAKERS themselves are saying NO DO NOT WANT.

Let me tell you what we can create as mod makers without charging for our product...anything!

We can make 1:1 duplicates of IP owned by companies, we can make things of any quality we want which ranges from gameplay elements to visuals, we can rest easy knowing that at the worst someone may be taking our models and selling them on a website like turbosquid, we can make movie based mods right down to the logo without infringing on trademark laws, and we don't have to worry about getting in trouble for "Damaging the name" of the IP we duplicate. All of this and we don't have to pay for a license or ask anyone 'hey can I make this of yours'

Yes there may be some legitimate modders out there that would sell their very own content, but the ones who win the most are the people who would disregard all of the above, who don't care about the rules and would gladly take anyones work and put it up for sale...(Especially on steam of all places, where early access and the cesspit of "games" that devs should be ashamed to put out on the first place, a place filled with "Devs" that purposely leave a game an eternal alpha state.)

That is why many modders don't want to see the ability, because as soon as you do that you open the gateway to a literal hell. Not to mention WE suddenly become a target and modder becomes a dirty word, synonomous with sellout regardless of that persons actions.

Edited April 26, 2015 by NodUnit

[Rydygier 1302]

Those "trade secrets" you refer to are exactly what you do not share with competition, and what potentially give you an advantage.

From my own experience - even if I would be after as much money as possible in the first place as a reason of monetizing (which isn't obvious at all), I wouldn't hesitate to share my knowledge with "potential competitors" for few reasons.

1. Knowledge is obviously necessary to mod, but it's barely an "entry fee", not guarantee any result. There aren't any "golden key" secrets or formulas/algorithms/whatever allowing by itself its holders making succesful mods one after another. There are more important conditions to be met than technical "know how". Talent. Skill. Experience. Pacience/perseverance/determination. Tons of workhours. Who, wanting to make "fast&easy $", would provide enough of all those? Anyone that would "deserves" my help, as promising person, that may seriously enrich the community in the future, worthy of any help. Otherwise - he'll vanish as soon he realize the above.

2. Knowledge necessary to start and master the modding skills is lying around already anyway. Lots of it. Even assuming encrypted mods.

3. We all are beneficiaries of someone's else knowledge to some extend. I'm helping the others - others will help me. And even if not - many simply enjoy helping, which enjoyment also is kind of currency for some.

But as said, assuming, that who is monetizing, have to be after maximal income is not valid. Another good reason is collect some money allowing to spare more time for modding, instead of let's say, taking another contract this month. Or just treating this as additional bonus for the hard work, that would be made anyway for other reasons.

Money indeed may trigger in people worst behaviours, but it's not obligatory nor even dominating. Same worries was about MANW. So it will destroy community. Is it destroyed? Didn't noticed. On the contrary. Some people started to work together and cooperate more. Some cool mods showed up, and other thanks to said cooperation are coming. Others are as helpful and open as before and as during the contest. So don't neglect money impact, yes, but also don't think so low about the modders. It is even kinda offensive hearing, how low community think about the modder, so according to them I'm like a gremlin, and I'll for sure turn into some "greed monster" lead by lowest instincts alone as soon someone would shine a nickel at me. I would call it "naive pessimism". Yes, some may act like that. But those are acting like that even without the money in the equasion. Some of such kind may come attracted by the shine of "easy $", but they'll not stay long, as this $ isn't that easy, as it looks.

So, indeed, above isn't a problem IMHO, a problem is perspective of people selling my work as their own. Problem serious, but perfectly solveable. Stolen work may be reported and verified as such easily. The more, as I heard about such plans somewhere already, if implemented a preliminary condition to be met before item may be monetized, kind of "community confirmation" the work is genuine, not stolen from someone.

So in fact the main problem are rules of monetizing - social, legal and financial solutions applied.

Another may be quality and compatibility maintenance. As said before - no one can guarantee to the buyer, so mod is and will stay 100% compatible with the game and, the more, with all other possible mods. No one. No way, unless they will choose a model of making mods an official DLCs, where dev studio itself maintain compatibility among such treated mods. Otherwise it's simply the risk, potential buyer must consider before he buy something, taking into account also modder's reputation.

If many in this case would decide not to buy any mod - perfectly understandable. Their choice. Same, as modder's free choice should be whether to sell fruits of own labour, give it away for free, or keep to himself.

Still even, if mod may stop work after a year, may be perfectly worthy of that terrible, extortionate price of some ice cream portion, which by the way usually "stops working" much faster, than any mod and without refund chance. If one is willing to spend such money for something, that will be gone after minutes, why so hysterical about perspective of paying similar amount of $ for mod, that only possibly may stop to work after months or years. People sometimes willingly are buying for much more whole games, that provide much less hours of fun.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Rydygier

[Tonci87 163]

Another may be quality and compatibility maintenance. As said before - no one can guarantee to the buyer, so mod is and will stay 100% compatible with the game and, the more, with all other possible mods. No one. No way, unless they will choose a model of making mods an official DLCs, where dev studio itself maintain compatibility among such treated mods. Otherwise it's simply the risk, potential buyer must consider before he buy something, taking into account also modder's reputation.

See, that is where this wole thing clashes with consumer protection laws. If you sell something you have to guarantee that said object will work for at least a specified ammount of time. You make a mod, refuse to fix it, and have one angry user who doesn´t mind to go to court and you are potentially in a world of trouble. If you want to sell mods you better should have a legal expenses insurance.

[Rydygier 1302]

Yes, I do recognize it as a problem/challenge to overcome/accept, but this:

If you sell something you have to guarantee that said object will work for at least a specified ammount of time.

Is not valid IMHO. Terms may be any, important is only, so both sides are awared about them and accept them as fair enough. IMO fair enough is, if potential buyer is awared about the fact, there's no such warranty. "Ice cream" example IMO shows pretty nice, why not guaranteed "eternal life" or even "long life" shouldn't be really an issue here for most of the people, while other are free to not buy the mod, if it doesn't meet their expectations as for maintenance/compatibility insurance.

I do agree however, what I said earlier, monetizing may become easily

full of traps, monsters and dark corners dungeon

So personally I would advice to myself and any other to think twice or thrice and do it well before entering it.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Rydygier

[Chairborne 2594]

It's not just knowledge, but also game content you developed.

Right now there aren't many reasons why you wouldn't share something (models, scripts, etc) with someone else in Arma modding, if monetization comes that might (i think it WILL) change.

You sell something that uses material i gave you? Well i want a cut, or since i disagree with you, i want you to remove all the material i gave you from the monetized content.

Sure not everyone is going to go insane, nor this will trigger bad behavior in every single one of us but as you said some might take advantage of monetization, or even worse new modders might come and flood the workshop with crap mods trying to make easy money off microtransactions.

Why do we want to risk ruining something that has been working just fine for over 20 years?

Also NodUnit made some very good points.

Still even, if mod may stop work after a year, may be perfectly worthy of that terrible, extortionate price of some ice cream portion, which by the way usually "stops working" much faster, than any mod and without refund chance. If one is willing to spend such money for something, that will be gone after minutes, why so hysterical about perspective of paying similar amount of $ for mod, that only possibly may stop to work after months or years. People sometimes willingly are buying for much more whole games, that provide much less hours of fun.

You eat all your ice cream and the expectation of buying and eating ice cream is fulfilled while the expectation of buying and playing a mod might not be fulfilled if one patch breaks it.

Never the less i think the justification that just because the mod is cheap it's no problem if it breaks over time is terrible, i still payed money for something and i deserve a finished product!

How is that any different from an indie game being sold for cheap?

[tonic-_- 53]

This may be a bit odd coming from me but I actually like the idea of paid mods. I myself do it as a hobby and to learn, not once have I ever had the thought of profiting from my own work and to actually do it legally is a cool thing. Modders being able to generate some income from their hard work can actually only ever improve their work. Take Kju for an example, he quit mainly because he could not facilitate the money needed to sustain his life and the only real option was to quit modding. Paid modding actually opens the doors for people like Kju to mod, do what they love and sustain a income to be able to do it.

A lot of people are looking at this like it's the end of modding and Valve is nothing more then greedy assholes but it's not the end of modding nor are they greedy. Creating and maintaining a place to host mods and easily get them is not cheap, I'm sure Foxhound can tell any of you that. As for the percentage cut that the publisher / developer would be taking which for the current example is Bethesda, they have royalties to pay for the software you use to make mods so that sums that up pretty much. I like the idea of paid mods because it opens up new doors and can evolve modding into something more and also has a potential to hurt the big wigs like EA / Activision on the PC, hell may even inspire Triple-A titles to open up modding. You don't see modding on big titles anymore mainly because it's all about maintaining sales for their newest titles and obviously opening up modding to that title in a franchise hurts profits for future titles.

I am not a fan of server monetization because servers mainly rely on content authors (modders) content and we as the content author / modder are not able to monetize our own content unless of course we are running a server. I sure as hell am not going to run a server to generate money for my content because it obviously not a practical move. I just like to create stuff and that's it.

I don't get why people are getting all hot and bothered by trivial things such as "Oh modding is dead, we'll have to pay for everything, blah blah blah". Modding it's self won't be dead because there are people out there that truly do it as a hobby and expect / want nothing more from it so there will always be good free mods out there. I also don't see people not helping other people out, knowledge if you do not know is the most valuable thing you can ever obtain and sharing that knowledge is probably one of the most rewarding things you can ever do. It's not like you can share something with someone and expect them to straight up take it and sell it and it'll be gold as pointed out. You need to have the talent and skill to be able to do that, not to mention put fourth a lot of time and energy.

The only thing that concerns me and should be what people focus on is mod compatibility, maintenance and of course IP Theft. I believe if you are going to create a modification and sell it then you are to be held to some sort of standard to maintain it just because you are selling it. For example, I no longer maintain nor want to touch VAS, I have every right to ditch it and never touch it again because I have no obligation to anyone to do so. Now if I were to sell it on the workshop for let's say $0.50 then I would be obligated to update it for every patch that may break it at the minimal and I should be held to do so or remove VAS from the workshop. Anyways, I am concerned mostly for IP theft and with what Dwarden said about reports alone on the workshop just being reports with no actual reason as to why its being reported adds concern for me, I couldn't imagine the report functionality being any better for a paid mod and it could create some serious problems. Also the 24-hour refund policy is a bit weak, that should be changed to 7-days minimal.

I know me agreeing with paid mods is totally out of character for me but yeah... Figured share my thoughts on it as a person who has been ripped off by thieves and also as someone who has helped people learn just from code alone.

[Rydygier 1302]

Right now there aren't many reasons why you wouldn't share something with someone else in Arma modding, if monetization comes that might (i think it WILL) change.

You sell something that uses material i gave you? Well i want a cut, or since i disagree with you, i want you to remove all the material i gave you from the monetized content.

That's true of course. If I want to sell something, that contains someone's else work, I need his consent, which often will mean a share for him. That's what I call fair. So such projects have to stay free or agreement have to be made between co-authors. BTW its the very reason, why I didn't submit second entry for MANW - was unable to contact some content providers my mod is using.

Why do we want to risk ruining something that has been working just fine for over 20 years?

My opinion: change (a wise change however, which not necessarily applies to Skyrim case atm) is needed, because what "has been working just fine" so long wasn't fair. Because modders wasn't allowed to sell fruits of his labour if they wanted. They should have that freedom. What's paradise for the players (a paradise indeed, so I can understand, why they are so reluctant about "banishing" from it), might be achieved in the unfair manner. It might be not such an issue for modders earlier, but as we can hear since Arma 3 modding became more work consuming than ever. So what was unfair from the beginning, now became too unfair to swallow. Of course one may have different sense of fairness, that's only my personal view. For the same reason additionally some may be no longer able to find a time for modding, while they have to earn money for living.

while the expectation of buying and playing a mod might not be fulfilled if one patch breaks it.

Sorry, but expectations and their adjustment are solely buyer's problem as long he is fairly informed, what is and what can't be guaranteed. I could expect, so my ice cream will last forever. Or so will taste well with roast chicken. So what? Shall I sue ice-cream vendor or producer, because I was disappointed?

i think the justification that just because the mod is cheap it's no problem if it breaks over time is terrible, i still payed money for something and i deserve a finished product!

You deserve only that much, seller guaranteed you at the transaction, you agreed to make with him. No more, no less. So you're fair in your anger only, when he lied to you about sold product. Same is for indie game and anything else, you can buy. And because mods if monetized most probably will be en masse as cheap, as proverbial ice cream, while most likely much longer useable (really, no reason to assume, they'll be often not updated, when author monetizes them - it's also his interest and IMO, also some internal sense of obligation, without any legal motivators, just simple "I do not want to disappoint them"), I indeed see no reason for hysteria about it.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Rydygier

[Tonci87 163]

From Eurogamer

Fishing mod Art of the Catch creator Chesko is furious at Valve for not removing their mod from the Steam Workshop entirely after they requested it be taken down and offered refunds to everyone who purchased it.

In a Reddit post about the issue Chesko clarified that it was his decision to remove the mod from sale, not Valve's. "After a discussion with Fore, I made the decision to pull Art of the Catch down myself. (It was not removed by a staff member.) Fore and I have talked since and we are okay."

Unfortunately, Valve won't let the modder remove their own work from the Workshop entirely, as those who purchased it already still have access to it. Chesko would prefer to refund everyone and reclaim their work to distribute as they please.

"I was just contacted by Valve's lawyer. He stated that they will not remove the content unless 'legally compelled to do so', and that they will make the file visible only to currently paid users," Chesko said. "I am beside myself with anger right now as they try to tell me what I can do with my own content. The copyright situation with Art of the Catch is shades of grey, but in Arissa 2.0's case, it's black and white; that's 100 per cent mine and Griefmyst's work, and I should be able to dictate its distribution if I so choose. Unbelievable."

Given this whole unfortunate ordeal, Chesko has chosen to leave the Steam Workshop completely. "With the complete lack of moderation control over the hundreds of spam and attack messages I have received on Steam and off, I am making the decision to leave the curated Workshop behind," he lamented. "I will be refunding all PayPal donations that have occurred today and yesterday."

"I may just host my mods on my own site for anyone who is interested," he stated. "What I need to happen, right now, is for modding to return to its place in my life where it's a fun side hobby, instead of taking over my life. That starts now. Or just give it up entirely; I have other things I could spend my energy on."

We have requested comment from Valve on why it won't allow modders to remove their own work entirely, even if they issue refunds. We'll let you know what the company says should it issue a response.

If you have a problem with how they do things their lawyers will speak to you.

[chrisb 196]

From Eurogamer

If you have a problem with how they do things their lawyers will speak to you.

I'll put my other post in answer to that article here, as well as in the other thread, why do we have so many threads concerning this subject.:confused:

--

I think its more down to the abuse he received from objectors to him entering the partnership in the first place. Many of those nutcases that probably use his mods. Tell them they may have to pay and knives come out really quickly.

That's a shame really, but it does show people up for who they really are. He didn't deserve any of the abuse he got. Now the players loose out, not because of steam but because of other players. Read more into what happened to him via steam, twitter and elsewhere, its not pleasant. This abuse was not put on him by steam, but other players, too narrow minded to see that he was just giving it a go, testing the water. Sad really, but that's what happens when your back is towards the people you were giving enjoyment to for free, just because he thought he might be able to earn a little from doing something he obviously loved doing. They stab you firmly in the back and abuse you, one minute they want your mod (for free of course) next minute they're writing terrible stuff about you, when they don't even know you.

Pretty typical, unfortunately.

[Chairborne 2594]

Steam also has its part in this and the article explains it pretty clearly.

If you put something on the Steam Workshop you can't decide for yourself what to do with your mod, but it's up to steam, and they go where the money goes.

[x3kj 1247]

Let me tell you what we can create as mod makers without charging for our product...anything!

We can make 1:1 duplicates of IP owned by companies, we can make things of any quality we want which ranges from gameplay elements to visuals, we can rest easy knowing that at the worst someone may be taking our models and selling them on a website like turbosquid, we can make movie based mods right down to the logo without infringing on trademark laws, and we don't have to worry about getting in trouble for "Damaging the name" of the IP we duplicate. All of this and we don't have to pay for a license or ask anyone 'hey can I make this of yours'

You can make things of others. And the "worst" you have to fear (unless you capitalize on it) is a DMCA takedown. It costs you no money. Except maybe tools required to create it. It did cost you a huge amount of time however, and nobody can give you that time that is basically wasted back.

If you put something on the Steam Workshop you can't decide for yourself what to do with your mod, but it's up to steam, and they go where the money goes.

It's customer protection ultimately. There are times when some authors have a hissy fit and delete all their stuff because some people triggered something. I dont see how mods remaining on steam but not beeing purchaseable is a big deal? It's effectively unavailable for everyone who hasn't paid.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Fennek

[kireta21 13]

I think its more down to the abuse he received from objectors to him entering the partnership in the first place. Many of those nutcases that probably use his mods. Tell them they may have to pay and knives come out really quickly.

While hate mail is the thing, this particular mod came under attack because author used assets from other modders, which wasn't issue untill he put it up for sale, to which they never agreed. Beign cool guy, he realised he did something inappropriate at least, and decided to pull it off from steam, only to learn mod is no longer his property but Valve's.