[skizm]

Bethesda did not ask for the fix. They have no obligation to compensate them financially.

Also, the amount of work one developer did in 6 months modding the game is probably still only an insanely small fraction of the work that went into coding the game engine being used. Which is probably written by dozens of programmers for months if not years.

Last, if you don't want them to make money on your mod, mark it free. This is totally an opt-in feature. No one is forcing modders to do anything.

[Raphmedia]

> Bethesda did not ask for the fix. They have no obligation to compensate them financially.

This is why this isn't about Bethesda paying or not paying modders. This is about why the hell should Bethesda get 75% of the profit out of a modification that was made on someone's own time and sold through a third party. It's not as if Bethesda was doing quality control, providing support, hosting the mods or providing a marketplace. Steam is providing the hosting for the mods and providing the marketplace, so it makes sense they get that small cut.

Bethesda shouldn't be getting such a big part of the pie.

This is not about some mods being free while other are paid. This is the community saying "No, we don't accept that. The modder getting 25% of profit for something that was done independently, without their support, is unacceptable."

The game company is getting free content, free publicity, free developers. They shouldn't also get the majority of the profit.

edit: fixed some numbers that were wrong (75% profit by company vs 25% profit by modder)

[skizm]

If the community didn't accept it, they wouldn't sell the mods. Just mark them all as free. This is opt-in.

Also, for the record, Bethesda only gets 45%, Valve get 30%, and the modder gets 25%.

> The game company is getting free content, free publicity, free developers. They shouldn't also get the majority of the profit.

You have it backwards, the modder is getting free content (the base game), free publicity (Bethesda spent $100m+ advertising Skyrim) and free developers (everyone who developed the engine/assets/etc.). The modder is getting way more free stuff than Bethesda.

[Raphmedia]

Your argument makes a lot of sense for developper that would create their mods for profit and profit only. They would get free publicity for their products. In that sense, yes, the game company is providing them with free ressources.

However, from my point of view, most mods are not seen or developed as products to be marketed. Most are work of love, personal projects, team projects. Fans getting together to fix a buggy but otherwise good game. In that sense, those developer couldn't care less about the fact that the game company is providing the game for free... they are fans, and all that they want is to make something cool. They add content to existing games for the sake of making the experience better.

Those are the ones that would rather work for free than being insulted by a 25% cut.

I believe the modders should get the majority of the pie. Steam should only get a cut for the hosting, support and mod store. The game company should only get a small cut. They already get a community and free content creators from the modding community. They shouldn't expect to make money out of thin air.

Should EA get money from old Battlefield 2 mods? Should Bohemia Interactive get money from Arma 1 mods? In my eyes, no. The only reason people are still playing those games is because of the modding community. Do take advantage of the presence of those players. Create events, contests, hire modders to create official content. But don't simply get the big part of the pie for simply being the creator of a game you don't even support, release bug fixes or content for.

That being said, I understand that there is a legal side to all of this and the game company must still get money for the use of their game. I however believe that 25% is too small a cut for the modder.

[skizm]

You can't charge based on the modder's intent. If a mod was made out of love vs. money grab is irrelevant. If people want to pay for it the question is how much money should the modder get?

You're saying the 25% is a raw deal. Maybe it is, but that's the mass-market deal. If you're mod is awesome, then maybe the publisher is willing to buy it or pay for it. Counter Strike was a mod that Valve bought and made into a standalone game. If it is shitty, well then you get the mass-market deal or nothing. Everything is a negotiation. If you think the company is treating you like shit, then don't do free work for them that they didn't ask for.

[Raphmedia]

How would you do it? Be glad the that some of the money is send to the modder when you purchase a mod and have modders abandon games that take too big a cut?

From my point of view, if this happens, it would simply hurt the modding community as a whole. Big games like Skyrim will get a big quantity of low quality mods that sells for lower and lower, driving the market down, making the modder already small cut even smaller.

Damn, this situation is complicated. I understand why Steam pulled the plug while they think about it more.

[skizm]

Bethesda/Valve will do some A/B testing with different games to see what the optimal pricing/payout scheme is, but right now modders get absolutely nothing (donations are near 0 even for top modders) so I just don't see how adding the option to get paid (even a small amount) is a bad thing for the community.

As an aside, I actually think the way the payout scheme was pretty fair. I mean valve is taking 30% of everything sold on their marketplace no matter what, so if you write that out and only count the money that could go to the publisher the split was actually 65/35 publisher/modder.

That said, I can understand people arguing too much or too little. All I am saying is that I think, overall, paid mods are a net positive once they shake out the kinks.