[lsaferite]

As much as the idea of paid mods pissed me off, I 100% agree with this. Anyone who was getting upset over the 25% to the modder was just using it as an argument point and not serious. If they were serious then they would have come to the same conclusion you did and realized 25% of something is better, monetarily, than 100% of nothing.

[Lawtonfogle]

That doesn't hold up. The argument that Y% of X is better than 100% of 0 for 100 > Y > 0 doesn't seem to hold up if we set Y to be really low, say .01%. Thus we accept that at some point, a certain percent of some amount of money is a 'slap in the face' compared to it being free and based on donations. That some people think that is at 25 instead of .01 does not mean they have a hidden agenda.

[lsaferite]

I'd say the person who can rightfully make that argument is the person choosing to sell or not sell their content.

[darkmighty]

Yes, but you cannot judge 25% sufficient (a priori) like that, just as you can't judge any % insufficient a priori. It may very well be too low and damage the community. And clearly the consensus was that it is too low.

[Lawtonfogle]

My point is independent of who deserves to make that argument. I am merely saying that those who do make that argument are not always doing so with a hidden agenda.

[grogen]

Fair distribution is one of the situations in which rationality breaks down. See the ultimatum game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

[Already__Taken]

It's also a sting as others have mentions because the customer already must have bought 100% of something to get assets the will use. The publisher skimming 75% off 100% of the value that modders created for free seems a bit shitty.

Especially when there's still no requirement for the original developer to have made the modders lives any easier to get this benefit.