Gary's Mod
Counter Strike
Team Fortress
Red Orchestra
DOTA
Natural Selection
to name but a few... All mods that at some point "went pay to play" and are now hit-games. Anybody that says "mods are a hobby" or "mods are the last bastion of innocence" blah blah. What you fail to realise is that there are only a small portion of mods that are made for the joy of it, that are made as a hobby, and that are made with no dreams of grandeur attached.
i started my career in modding but it sure as hell wasn't a hobby for me. i absolutely saw it as a way to break into the industry, modding to me was a tool to be used to further my ambitions. i took modding just as seriously as if i was working on an actual game/product. i'd be willing to bet i'm far from the only person on polycount who started out the same way.
WITH ALL THAT SAID
i think the way this was handled was terrible. they tried it with an already established community and ended up fracturing it. they should have waited for a new game and started there. and that's really all there is to it.
As someone who has been part of the SC2 modding community, I saw the news and just laughed loud and long.
In case nobody remembers: Blizzard wanted to add paid maps to their Battle.net structure for SC2. The entire discussion about paid mods/maps happened back then too. And the overwhelming majority saw too many issue with the idea for it to ever be a viable option. And well, then they proceeded to kill off the SC2 community and most of the skilled people all wandered away to work with the other free engines available to make actual games.
In case of Valve & Bethesda they didn't even go into a new game, they went into an established one. Not only that, they went into a modding community that has a reputation for being Bethesda's clean-up crew. Fallout and Elder Scrolls game are notoriously buggy messes with horrible UIs and clunky mechanics.
And then they established it in such a way that they can wash their hands off all responsibility and cash in on it. Holy shit would I have liked to see that blow up in a raging fiery shitstorm down the line.
I'm all for community content and making cash for all involved. But there have been much better, far less idiotic systems shown in recent times.
1. Community Packs
Valve themselves have shown how to do one with the CS:GO Community Packs. Those are quality controlled, finalized content that is in the developers obligation to keep working, not the community folks.
2. The DotA2 Workshop Process
Make stuff. Submit stuff. Valve looks at stuff. Valve adds stuff, you get half the cash. Valve is responsibile for keeping it working.
3. Community/Student DLC Development
During my studying time we had a deal going with Bioware to produce some DLC content for Dragon Age. This was supervised by a developer and properly QA'd.
4. The UE4 Dev Grants
Probably one of the more interesting options. Invest some cash now to help with promising projects to cash in on them later.
5. Polycount/Mapcore/Whereeverprogrammershide Contests
Unreal Tournament, CS:GO, DotA2, Chivalry, etc - all those we've seen and all those came out of it with great content. I'm sure this can be adopted to community contests as well. Final instance, once again, is the developers as judges of what fits their games best. And final responsibility for the pretty that was made to remain working is with the developers. Not random-ass modder #232 that might abandon his project. Been there, seen those a thousand times. Was part of that too.
Big mods like Skywind could really benefit from a combination of Community DLC and Dev Grants.
If Bethesda wants to be serious about paid mods, maybe they should create a mod fund (and fix their bloody tools they release to not be a horrible mess). They could then contact people with promising mods, help them bring it along with small payments based on milestones, as well as direct dev contact and then release it as paid Community DLC on the Steam Store after it has been QA'd for a split cut of the cash for everyone involved. Maintenance and functionality then are no longer the responsibility of the modder and are once again the responsibility of Bethesda. If the modder/mod team wants to update the content further, this can easily be done with regular patching of the game after QA by the developer.
TL; DR: There's two ways to do community created content: The lazy, chaotic cash-in we've seen and the properly planned through and invested approach.
If you as a company want this concept to work for the long-term good of your game and it's community, ya gotta own up to it.
2. The DotA2 Workshop Process
Make stuff. Submit stuff. Valve looks at stuff. Valve adds stuff, you get half the cash.
Just for the sake of being accurate : for Dota2 user generated content the split going to the artist is 25%, not half. It's the same for Chivalry, and probably the same for TF2 too.
Gary's Mod
Counter Strike
Team Fortress
Red Orchestra
DOTA
Natural Selection
to name but a few... All mods that at some point "went pay to play" and are now hit-games.
I think the main difference there is that most of them are large 'total conversion' mods that went "pay to play" as stand-alone games (some backed by larger companies), and not as unsupported mods on a workshop that still require a separate base game to be purchased first in order to run.
I think Greenlight is better suited for that than filling the workshop with $X apples.
A large part of the modding community is the sharing of assets. Mods are built upon each other.
Take the skyrim example. For the nude/lewd mops a skeleton and rig was created that is now considered the standard even for non-sexual mods. Pose and animation mods have been built on top of it. Other mods use those animations to give life to their locations. etc. It's all intertwined.
Why would I share assets if I stand a chance of gaining money from them? Would we have to start licensing mod assets of each other? That would be ridiculous.
From what i remember this is exactly how project Spark was supposed to work like. say you build a tower, and sell it or put it our for free, someone picks that tower and makes a towerdefense game and sells it. You will get a share.
Obviously the shares will get smaller and smaller the deeper mods are integrated into other mods. But still everyone contributing will get a share.
So in your example with the rig, it would be pretty simple.
Create it, share it. Make it free or paid, whatever. As long as the modding system behind it will make sure that you get your share of any commercial mod using your asset.
How it went life is obviously still far away from that, but I would definitely not say that the idea of paid mods should be buried just because it didn't work out this time.
It will need a clever system behind it, and even while the Dota workshop does a lot of things right, some things are pretty much impossible in it's current state. Like for instance mod members joining later on, adjusting the shares accordingly. Other members leaving, their content being replaced, so their shares should be replaced as well. And so on, it is a highly complicated topic, but i do think it is possible and would give creators the possiblity to not being dependent on a studiojob just to work in games.
I think Valve nailed their assessment of the fiasco.
Skyrim was just a poor choice of springboard, as their modding community was already intact, and that community wasn't particularly open for disruption.
There ARE possibilities with this, but they need to be more carefully chosen and implemented, and built from the ground up, rather than "tacked-on" after a few years.
I think the main difference there is that most of them are large 'total conversion' mods that went "pay to play" as stand-alone games (some backed by larger companies), and not as unsupported mods on a workshop that still require a separate base game to be purchased first in order to run.
I think Greenlight is better suited for that than filling the workshop with $X apples.
Let me be clear - My point was that mods have never ever been that last bastion of innocence, they've never been untouchable by greed, and they've certainly never always just been a hobby to people who make them.
I agree, there's a difference between weapon mods and a total conversion, but don't think that every guy who makes weapons only is doing it just for fun. Many of them are doing it to build an online "brand" for themselves, which will help propel them to bigger better things.
Not sure how a mod team going on to make a game like/based on their mod is showing greed? It's not like something that starts as a mod has to be free forever just because of its roots. That doesn't seem comparable to someone making and selling a weapon pack. Though, in both scenarios, it could totally be up to the user to decide if they think that product is worth the money.
It's a shame that it went so badly. Paid mods for a game like Skyrim could have opened the door to some really awesome stuff.
Personally, I think valve/steam have done a really good job of opening up alternative means to fund game development. Paid workshops and early access games have made a huge amount of high quality independent game content possible. The contract I am working on now, The Forest, wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the early access system. More flexible ways to monetize game development is a good thing.
Hopefully Valve can do a better job of communicating the up side to customers. Also, hopefully their next attempt at paid mods will be curated, at least initially, to help start things off on the right foot.
1. Community Packs
Valve themselves have shown how to do one with the CS:GO Community Packs. Those are quality controlled, finalized content that is in the developers obligation to keep working, not the community folks.
I really enjoyed the community packs for this reason. I purchased the maps knowing that they would work properly for the foreseeable future and the fact that they had to be held to a certain quality.
As many have said, choosing Skyrim as the guinea pig for this idea was a mistake. But as a developer, I'm still excited about the possibilities that paid mods would open up.
Putting the practical, legal and monetary issues to one side for a moment, I would love to see skilled developers have a viable route to create original, ambitious content for pre-existing games.
For instance, I'm a huge GTA fan, but sometimes I grow weary of similar-feeling characters, dialogue and scenarios (that's Rockstar's bread and butter, I can't knock it!). Personally, I feel like those worlds are so well realized and bristling with possibilities for different types of characters, stories and gameplay. If there was a way for devs to create new experiences of a professional quality within that existing game world I think it could lead to some really unique and compelling content.
At that point a game could become more of a platform for a broader range of experiences, which would give games a longer shelf-life and encourage developers to support and develop their modding communities.
This is all pie in the sky admittedly, but I'd love to play through an experience in GTA V that was reminiscent of True Detective, or Backdraft, or Fargo, or Jaws or any number of different scenarios. To have those familiar worlds given new life through skilled creators with a unique take on the game would really be something.
Just for the sake of being accurate : for Dota2 user generated content the split going to the artist is 25%, not half. It's the same for Chivalry, and probably the same for TF2 too.
No idea how I got 50% cut into my head (wishful thinking?). Valve takes the lion's share there. But it's at least profitable ... because, ya know. Hats. Hats won't stop working unless someone at Valve fucks around with the rig.
I really enjoyed the community packs for this reason. I purchased the maps knowing that they would work properly for the foreseeable future and the fact that they had to be held to a certain quality.
Yup. I don't even play CS:GO that much and I bought them, because a) support fellows I know make fun stuff and b) can be sure it's not abandoned 2 months later.
I really think a false dichotomy is being rehashed here over and over with hobbyists vs professionals. It keeps being said without a good explanation. I can't see the difference unless one purposefully says they are one or the other.
I feel pretty chapped about this reversal, honestly. I will agree through that Skyrim was a terrible entry into this idea and it could have chosen a newer game or perhaps something that people could ease into the idea with.
oXYnary - In terms of modding I look at professionals as those who are making their living off the storefront. There are a number of people who solely work through making Dota cosmetic items. I would consider these people to be professionals in the way that it is their full time job or in some cases people in the industry currently, who are creating professional grade items.
I can't help but feel like we're missing out because while a great number of people will mod for the love of modding there are others that need more justification. Their product can still have soul, but some people just won't justify spending their time working on something in their free time when they already spend 8-10+ hours a day modeling for their day job. Knowing that you could make something back worth your time or even turn it into a full time endeavor is a great opportunity and it is something we've seen take off first hand on the Dota2 sub-forum.
The "community" will violently resist it for any future title from bethesda, even though games under the creation engine can potentially also be a good choice for people to sell their mods for.
People were genuinely angry that the future version of skyUI was going to cost them a petty fee no matter how good the actual mod is, and then they throw hyperboles around about how skyrim is completely unplayable without this mod.
So result being: working on bethesda mods means the community will resist the very idea of monetizing mods through all time.
Edit: I made a bad blanket accusation, so I'm going to fess up and say shot my mouth off there.
Point is, the excuse "We don't make content for free." Is a terrible excuse when the service is bad and ill-implemented. When a community like Skyrim modding is built on free content, don't expect it to end pleasantly as Valve just found out.
Is that pound of flesh worth reputation and dissonance? Hell no, and neither is the "holy than thou" attitude. I get it, we get paid beans as artists and I know that every bit counts. But you don't slash your customers and potential customers throats.
Are gamers entitled? Hell yes, but in this case they've got every reason to be.
The mod scene for Skyrim? A glorious, bug-ridden, and copyright infested nest. It was a disaster when money was thrown into the scene. Other's have said it: Mods were free for actual legal reasons, passion, or practice, but that resulted in cross pollination of mods and assets.
The problem? The modding scene is a giant web and a mess too. Make mods from just mods into proper, working 3rd party DLC, but they couldn't even do that. And neither is it ethical or good practice to sell your customer a potential bug and compatibility land mine.
And the sad thing? I actually was excited about this until the bloody details came out. Valve and Bethesda just did everyone a disfavor. And frankly, gamers have properly spoken and I back their fire and vitriol. In my opinion, there can be a market for paid "Mods" but, that being first, they've got to work and be cross-independent from other mods or DLC. Good products engender good will, but taking stuff that people not only took for granted, but was literally ingrained in the modder and gamer aspect of Skyrim? Explosions waiting to happen.
You want a profitable user generated market place? Make it work, make it stable, and make it proper. This is an example of how not to do it. I like money, but I'm not going to take money from my customers for ill gain, or built on shitty ethics. I give a damn about gamers because I am one, and as an entitled Gamer I'm damn pissed at the shitty mess delivered.
As a working artist and newbie game artist, it actually hurts us when we decide our pockets are more important than the gamers who make everything possible and many modders who do it for passion or practice. Many modders just had their names slung with mud, and I'm no hurry to do the same.
In the end, goodwill can't simply be bought, and and can be lost easily with badly planned gaffes.
For all of you defending Valve and Bethesda, grow up and smell the reality. I didn't spend over 15 years in retail without knowing that the most irreplaceable and important part of any business IS the goodwill of the consumer and community.
Nobody is saying that Beth or Valve did a good job with customer relations. Stop making strawmen.
Edit: I made a bad blanket accusation, so I'm going to fess up and say shot my mouth off there.
Point is, the excuse "We don't make content for free." Is a terrible excuse when the service is bad and ill-implemented. When a community like Skyrim modding is built on free content, don't expect it to end pleasantly as Valve just found out.
Is that pound of flesh worth reputation and dissonance? Hell no, and neither is the "holy than thou" attitude. I get it, we get paid beans as artists and I know that every bit counts. But you don't slash your customers and potential customers throats.
Are gamers entitled? Hell yes, but in this case they've got every reason to be.
The mod scene for Skyrim? A glorious, bug-ridden, and copyright infested nest. It was a disaster when money was thrown into the scene. Other's have said it: Mods were free for actual legal reasons, passion, or practice, but that resulted in cross pollination of mods and assets.
The problem? The modding scene is a giant web and a mess too. Make mods from just mods into proper, working 3rd party DLC, but they couldn't even do that. And neither is it ethical or good practice to sell your customer a potential bug and compatibility land mine.
And the sad thing? I actually was excited about this until the bloody details came out. Valve and Bethesda just did everyone a disfavor. And frankly, gamers have properly spoken and I back their fire and vitriol. In my opinion, there can be a market for paid "Mods" but, that being first, they've got to work and be cross-independent from other mods or DLC. Good products engender good will, but taking stuff that people not only took for granted, but was literally ingrained in the modder and gamer aspect of Skyrim? Explosions waiting to happen.
You want a profitable user generated market place? Make it work, make it stable, and make it proper. This is an example of how not to do it. I like money, but I'm not going to take money from my customers for ill gain, or built on shitty ethics. I give a damn about gamers because I am one, and as an entitled Gamer I'm damn pissed at the shitty mess delivered.
As a working artist and newbie game artist, it actually hurts us when we decide our pockets are more important than the gamers who make everything possible and many modders who do it for passion or practice. Many modders just had their names slung with mud, and I'm no hurry to do the same.
In the end, goodwill can't simply be bought, and and can be lost easily with badly planned gaffes.
Nobody has suggested that all mods be paid. I am sure there are modders out there who have poured a huge amount of time and energy into development who would love the option to sell their work. Also, consider how much higher quality a paid mod could become when the developers can afford to hire people to do the things they aren't particularly good at. At some point, the distinction between mods and games becomes moot. Most of us work on games that use a middleware engine. Mods just take that concept further by piggy backing on the gameplay and content developed by another studio. I don't understand why this is perceived so differently than paid indie games.
Most of us work on games that use a middleware engine. Mods just take that concept further by piggy backing on the gameplay and content developed by another studio. I don't understand why this is perceived so differently than paid indie games.
The best way to understand something is to think of it from the other side, like a devil's advocate. Theres likely to be many who think the opposite: that making all the content of an original indie game is taking it much further than making a change to an existing game's scripts or assets. Even Steam treats the two things differently. Indie games have Steam Greenlight, where they essentially have to compete and get the community to vote them into the store while paying $100 first. There's some level of standards that a a game has to reach in order to even make it to distribution. The workshop is a different beast. Its a chaotic free-for-all for anyone to partake in. As a result people aren't finding the shining crowns of modding there (the Counter Strikes and the like), instead they're seeing the expensive horse vaginas and the $1 extra apples that were filling it up in protest.
When people pay for a finished stand alone game (Indie or AAA), they probably expect it to work as the game developers intended. From my own experiences addons have not worked that way because the whole point is to change the game, and it usually doesn't go through all the QA that an official patch would. I couldn't count the number of cool looking weapons and armor I've downloaded for Skyrim, only to soon remove them upon realizing how unbalanced they made the game. It's easy to switch back to a vanilla glass axe when there's no money involved, having paid for a specific add on would make me feel much more locked-in.
Now I don't think you have to agree with any of that, personally I like the thought of getting paid for any contributions I would make. But I don't think it is hard at all to at least understand why so many people would perceive paying for a mod differently than paying for an indie game.
Nobody has suggested that all mods be paid. I am sure there are modders out there who have poured a huge amount of time and energy into development who would love the option to sell their work. Also, consider how much higher quality a paid mod could become when the developers can afford to hire people to do the things they aren't particularly good at. At some point, the distinction between mods and games becomes moot. Most of us work on games that use a middleware engine. Mods just take that concept further by piggy backing on the gameplay and content developed by another studio. I don't understand why this is perceived so differently than paid indie games.
Well, I said in my rant, that I support the idea of paid content. Catch 22, is that it needs to actually meet expectations when throw money into it. Sell shitty stuff, and bam, reputation for shitty products and it's a ripoff. Means less money and goodwill in the long run.
When money is committed, we should raise the bar. Customers who are treated badly react by throwing us under the bus. Unless you want to be considered the Wal-Mart of gaming.
We have to avoid being arrogant. And I find it appalling that some devs are haughty enough to call gamers entitled concerning the nature of Skyrim's chaotic modding. Frankly, we have no rights to entitlement in this case. In fact, I think we'd be wise to note why this event went horribly wrong.
The 3D industry proved paid mods can co-exist with free ones years ago. Even Blender has paid extensions and is on Steam, should it receive the same treatment? Don't tell the Quixel guys either. (In point of fact, the original nDo plugin was free.)
Maybe a Patreon system would be better, if someone wants to support a modder they can do, but everything is still released freely, maybe with a "buy in" of so many released mods before you can be sponsored.
Pretty much my experience with skyrim I quit the game after 18 hours in, because I downloaded too many modes that I thought would be useful but made the game too easy, the one where you can smelt unused items at the smith was way OP that I didn't even realise before it was too late.
I think the workshop could have worked if it had:
Minimum amount of content required for a mod to make it into the workshop. So things like individual skins or items couldn't make it but complete environment packs, etc would.
If the mods were dirt cheap, think $5-$10 max cap for the biggest mods.
A more fair revenue share for the modders so selling low would still be worthwhile.
A good review system that removes products with low reviews after a certain amount of people reviewed it. I would even go far enough to say offering steam wallet refunds for everyone who bought it, this can be T&C modders need to accept. If your mod is not up to standard its not worth the money. Refunds should be limited to a 6 month period since purchase though.
I'd say a quality check team to test each and every mod but I don't see how Beth would do this without wanting like 99% of the profit shares.
Nice ideas, but the public review system might not work. It needs only one person to subjectively hate your mod idea, to rally other people behind him and cause a small shitstorm by a small but loud minority. Thats not a matter of quality, personal taste plays a big role in the community. And at times the upset rally, just to be upset. And then hell breaks lose, ever recieved deaththreats in the dozens?
We have been part in a shitstorm, because of a purely cosmetical set for dota, believe me it is no fun. And the sales showed, that the vocal crowd was a minority, but damn have they been pissed.
By now it clearly showed, that we in fact did not destroy dota or the workshop, and even valve did create an update that supports our lore (maybe on purpose, maybe by accident), who would have guessed...
Just look at what happened this time, it will happen again and for far minor reasons...
@AtomicChikkin: but the reputation issue, the bad producs and ripoffs, are the bad mods then. Not the original game, thats a thing people have to learn then. Good modding crews will get a reputation and they will work to keep this reputation and their fanbase. Shitty mods and ripoffs will have to be marked as that, but it should not have any influence on the original game's reputation.
Nice ideas, but the public review system might not work. It needs only one person to subjectively hate your mod idea, to rally other people behind him and cause a small shitstorm by a small but loud minority. Thats not a matter of quality, personal taste plays a big role in the community. And at times the upset rally, just to be upset. And then hell breaks lose, ever recieved deaththreats in the dozens?
We have been part in a shitstorm, because of a purely cosmetical set for dota, believe me it is no fun. And the sales showed, that the vocal crowd was a minority, but damn have they been pissed.
By now it clearly showed, that we in fact did not destroy dota or the workshop, and even valve did create an update that supports our lore (maybe on purpose, maybe by accident), who would have guessed...
Just look at what happened this time, it will happen again and for far minor reasons...
@AtomicChikkin: but the reputation issue, the bad producs and ripoffs, are the bad mods then. Not the original game, thats a thing people have to learn then. Good modding crews will get a reputation and they will work to keep this reputation and their fanbase. Shitty mods and ripoffs will have to be marked as that, but it should not have any influence on the original game's reputation.
If I am going to be honest if the cost of having the workshop far more open, mostly running itself, and not curated (which results in Valve having their little group of favourites and making it difficult for new modders to come in) is that there is an occasional witch hunt and a few ruffled feathers then frankly I don't care. Accept that you if you wan't to make money, make high quality mainstream accepted content or risk a witch hunt and accept that just like a company you need to react quickly if you see such a thing coming. I might be wrong on this, but with the sheer size that Skyrim's paid workshop could be I don't think curation is an entirely realistic solution.
-edit- To continue, Dota is a very different in this regard, everybody is forced to see accepted content because it's a multiplayer game. I can't see these same witch hunts on a single player game, if you don't like some lore breaking mod...don't buy it and you will never see it.
If I am going to be honest if the cost of having the workshop far more open, mostly running itself, and not curated (which results in Valve having their little group of favourites and making it difficult for new modders to come in) is that there is an occasional witch hunt and a few ruffled feathers then frankly I don't care. Accept that you if you wan't to make money, make high quality mainstream accepted content or risk a witch hunt and accept that just like a company you need to react quickly if you see such a thing coming. I might be wrong on this, but with the sheer size that Skyrim's paid workshop could be I don't think curation is an entirely realistic solution.
-edit- To continue, Dota is a very different in this regard, everybody is forced to see accepted content because it's a multiplayer game. I can't see these same witch hunts on a single player game, if you don't like some lore breaking mod...don't buy it and you will never see it.
and who is the community? the overwhelming majority of players who just want to enjoy their game or a very loud minority?
I don't want to make this about us, but we once have been in that situation and it sucks and is plain wrong.
For comparison the said set, sold in the tens of thousands (and is still selling, not razy good, but still) without complaints and about a hundred people have been very very loud about how much they hate it.
I can totally understand if people dislike something, but if the vast majority of workshop participants voted for something, don't try to start a witch hunt. And especially don't try to hunt down peoples personal emails and threaten them - thats no viable behaviour in ANY situation. Ever.
and who is the community? the overwhelming majority of players who just want to enjoy their game or a very loud minority?
I don't want to make this about us, but we once have been in that situation and it sucks and is plain wrong.
For comparison the said set, sold in the tens of thousands (and is still selling, not razy good, but still) without complaints and about a hundred people have been very very loud about how much they hate it.
I can totally understand if people dislike something, but if the vast majority of workshop participants voted for something, don't try to start a witch hunt. And especially don't try to hunt down peoples personal emails and threaten them - thats no viable behaviour in ANY situation. Ever.
I realise that it must suck, and I can't say I have been there. But surely you agree as I said, this shouldn't be such an issue on a single player game where everybody doesn't have to see the added content. The main reason these shit storms occur in Dota is people up in arms about having to see pink ursa sets or lore breaking content which they think is going to turn a game with a consistent artstyle into a TF2esque shitshow.
Either way if the cost of avoiding the occasional witch hunt (which as I said I think should be less frequent, although I can see it happen over stolen content) is that less people are able to access the store front, that there is less freedom with your content and Valve or Beth wish to take more of a cut to curate it then I personally don't think it's worth it.
For those of us who see "paid mods" or "community made DLC" as a good thing, please head over to the Bethsoft forums, there is a decent amount of discussion going on about how the system could have been better and Bethesda devs are occasionally posting. Who knows, you might influence the shaping of a better deal for content creators going into the future, paid mods will be back, if not with TES then with other franchises.
I realise that it must suck, and I can't say I have been there. But surely you agree as I said, this shouldn't be such an issue on a single player game where everybody doesn't have to see the added content. The main reason these shit storms occur in Dota is people up in arms about having to see pink ursa sets or lore breaking content which they think is going to turn a game with a consistent artstyle into a TF2esque shitshow.
Either way if the cost of avoiding the occasional witch hunt (which as I said I think should be less frequent, although I can see it happen over stolen content) is that less people are able to access the store front, that there is less freedom with your content and Valve or Beth wish to take more of a cut to curate it then I personally don't think it's worth it.
lets ignore the whole mess about the workshop, the rates etc. it happened with skyrim, the singleplayer game, peoples info has been doxed and people have been threatened personally. The internet is the internet and people are people, and someone will find something to start a witchhunt.
The 3D industry proved paid mods can co-exist with free ones years ago. Even Blender has paid extensions and is on Steam, should it receive the same treatment? Don't tell the Quixel guys either. (In point of fact, the original nDo plugin was free.)
I don't think you can lump tool extensions and mods in the same bucket....
I think the better question is, what the hell do you even get in advertising for 200 million? I know advertising isn't exactly cheap, but come an man. The average cost of an ad in super bowl 2015 is/was 4,5 million dollars.
I think the better question is, what the hell do you even get in advertising for 200 million? I know advertising isn't exactly cheap, but come an man. The average cost of an ad in super bowl 2015 is/was 4,5 million dollars.
That's one tv spot that only airs in the US one time. Now imagine trying to run advertisements hundreds of times a day across multiple channels in multiple countries for upwards of a month. It adds up.
I assume the marketing budget also includes paying people to create the advertisements in the first place, COD has produced a lot of live action trailers with visual effects. Add music licensing fees on top of that; CoD Ghosts seemed to have some deal with Eminem to release on of his songs as a pre-order bonus of the game. That couldn't have been cheap.
That's one tv spot that only airs in the US one time. Now imagine trying to run advertisements hundreds of times a day across multiple channels in multiple countries for upwards of a month. It adds up.
I assume the marketing budget also includes paying people to create the advertisements in the first place, COD has produced a lot of live action trailers with visual effects. Add music licensing fees on top of that; CoD Ghosts seemed to have some deal with Eminem to release on of his songs as a pre-order bonus of the game. That couldn't have been cheap.
Yup, plus just making a live action mixed with CG commercial often costs a million or two, and something like COD made a lot of different commercials and trailers. There were probably 5 advertising studios involved, and all of them take their cuts.
You're paying for print pieces. You're paying for PR. You're paying Twitch "stars" to stream and talk about your game and youtubers to make videos about you.
You're doing PR stunts. You're trying to make your e3 booth amazing.
200 million is a lot for sure, but burning 50 million is easy.
@AtomicChikkin: but the reputation issue, the bad producs and ripoffs, are the bad mods then. Not the original game, thats a thing people have to learn then. Good modding crews will get a reputation and they will work to keep this reputation and their fanbase. Shitty mods and ripoffs will have to be marked as that, but it should not have any influence on the original game's reputation.
Well, the original "rep" for the game is history. The reputation refers to the company, community, and modders involved. Skyrim is Skyrim. The community and modders are a separate issue.
But it does have the potential to affect future Bethesda titles.
Seriously. Consumers are seemingly unaware or uninterested in this fact. They just want the same amount of content they got in 15 years ago, with the best production value modern hardware can afford, and they don't want to pay more.
It's almost like paying $15 to go see a movie in the cinema, then later at the end of the movie after the show has ended a screen comes on saying for $3 more, you can see further scenes about what the characters did after the movie ended!
Would your rather that instead of seeing the movie and getting a $3 option later for more content, instead you simply got the same movie and no option to see more content?
Would your rather that instead of seeing the movie and getting a $3 option later for more content, instead you simply got the same movie and no option to see more content?
I would definitely not want any more content - but then that's not always how DLC works. Sometimes thet like to insert that extra ten minutes somewhere in the middle of the story, which is pretty rotten.
If it was something like "behind the scenes" then yeah, but if was like 10 minutes more of story related still within the movie, then definately prefer No extra content.
Whatever it is they want to add, they can add it to the sequel or better yet into the original movie.
thats exactly what happens with movies since ages, cut out scenes, directors cuts and so on you always buy something extra with the dvd vs the cinema experience
I definitely see where you are coming from, but something I've been wondering about is, should the customers really care about this? The costs have been ballooning over time, but is that increase proportional to the quality of games as viewed by the average user?
Also, was such sharp increase in dev costs even necessary in the first place? Or was it a side-effect of an arms-race for higher fidelity that no one really needed?
I ask this is because when it comes to my own game-playing habits, I find little connection between the high fidelity of graphics, animation, sound, etc. and my own enjoyment of the game. To put it plainly, I've played some AAA games that bored me to death and plenty of lower-budget titles that I had immense fun with. I also go back to older games every now and then and I find myself enjoying them just as much as I do recent titles. All of that is despite me knowing how much time, effort and skill goes into making a current gen title. Despite me being able to appreciate high-budget games on a technical level it has little effect on my enjoyment of them.
We could make gamers aware that game dev costs have risen 2-3 times, but I think that many will see it as a poor justification. The question they will probably ask is, are games 2-3 times better?
Just like how comparing pirated games with stolen cars doesn't really achieve anything, I honestly think that the movie/director's cut/DVD extras analogy doesn't work too well either.
If anything, I was actually pleasantly surprised to see some good coverage of this debacle on Kotaku. Goes to show that they really are trying to change for the better over there.
Please note that while the production cost might have raised over the years (though most is on marketing it seem), the potential income has also increase, with more consoles, players and sales. The age of who is playing games has spread as well, so the audience is much larger.
Replies
Gary's Mod
Counter Strike
Team Fortress
Red Orchestra
DOTA
Natural Selection
to name but a few... All mods that at some point "went pay to play" and are now hit-games. Anybody that says "mods are a hobby" or "mods are the last bastion of innocence" blah blah. What you fail to realise is that there are only a small portion of mods that are made for the joy of it, that are made as a hobby, and that are made with no dreams of grandeur attached.
i started my career in modding but it sure as hell wasn't a hobby for me. i absolutely saw it as a way to break into the industry, modding to me was a tool to be used to further my ambitions. i took modding just as seriously as if i was working on an actual game/product. i'd be willing to bet i'm far from the only person on polycount who started out the same way.
WITH ALL THAT SAID
i think the way this was handled was terrible. they tried it with an already established community and ended up fracturing it. they should have waited for a new game and started there. and that's really all there is to it.
In case nobody remembers: Blizzard wanted to add paid maps to their Battle.net structure for SC2. The entire discussion about paid mods/maps happened back then too. And the overwhelming majority saw too many issue with the idea for it to ever be a viable option. And well, then they proceeded to kill off the SC2 community and most of the skilled people all wandered away to work with the other free engines available to make actual games.
In case of Valve & Bethesda they didn't even go into a new game, they went into an established one. Not only that, they went into a modding community that has a reputation for being Bethesda's clean-up crew. Fallout and Elder Scrolls game are notoriously buggy messes with horrible UIs and clunky mechanics.
And then they established it in such a way that they can wash their hands off all responsibility and cash in on it. Holy shit would I have liked to see that blow up in a raging fiery shitstorm down the line.
I'm all for community content and making cash for all involved. But there have been much better, far less idiotic systems shown in recent times.
1. Community Packs
Valve themselves have shown how to do one with the CS:GO Community Packs. Those are quality controlled, finalized content that is in the developers obligation to keep working, not the community folks.
2. The DotA2 Workshop Process
Make stuff. Submit stuff. Valve looks at stuff. Valve adds stuff, you get half the cash. Valve is responsibile for keeping it working.
3. Community/Student DLC Development
During my studying time we had a deal going with Bioware to produce some DLC content for Dragon Age. This was supervised by a developer and properly QA'd.
4. The UE4 Dev Grants
Probably one of the more interesting options. Invest some cash now to help with promising projects to cash in on them later.
5. Polycount/Mapcore/Whereeverprogrammershide Contests
Unreal Tournament, CS:GO, DotA2, Chivalry, etc - all those we've seen and all those came out of it with great content. I'm sure this can be adopted to community contests as well. Final instance, once again, is the developers as judges of what fits their games best. And final responsibility for the pretty that was made to remain working is with the developers. Not random-ass modder #232 that might abandon his project. Been there, seen those a thousand times. Was part of that too.
Big mods like Skywind could really benefit from a combination of Community DLC and Dev Grants.
If Bethesda wants to be serious about paid mods, maybe they should create a mod fund (and fix their bloody tools they release to not be a horrible mess). They could then contact people with promising mods, help them bring it along with small payments based on milestones, as well as direct dev contact and then release it as paid Community DLC on the Steam Store after it has been QA'd for a split cut of the cash for everyone involved. Maintenance and functionality then are no longer the responsibility of the modder and are once again the responsibility of Bethesda. If the modder/mod team wants to update the content further, this can easily be done with regular patching of the game after QA by the developer.
TL; DR: There's two ways to do community created content: The lazy, chaotic cash-in we've seen and the properly planned through and invested approach.
If you as a company want this concept to work for the long-term good of your game and it's community, ya gotta own up to it.
Just for the sake of being accurate : for Dota2 user generated content the split going to the artist is 25%, not half. It's the same for Chivalry, and probably the same for TF2 too.
I think the main difference there is that most of them are large 'total conversion' mods that went "pay to play" as stand-alone games (some backed by larger companies), and not as unsupported mods on a workshop that still require a separate base game to be purchased first in order to run.
I think Greenlight is better suited for that than filling the workshop with $X apples.
From what i remember this is exactly how project Spark was supposed to work like. say you build a tower, and sell it or put it our for free, someone picks that tower and makes a towerdefense game and sells it. You will get a share.
Obviously the shares will get smaller and smaller the deeper mods are integrated into other mods. But still everyone contributing will get a share.
So in your example with the rig, it would be pretty simple.
Create it, share it. Make it free or paid, whatever. As long as the modding system behind it will make sure that you get your share of any commercial mod using your asset.
How it went life is obviously still far away from that, but I would definitely not say that the idea of paid mods should be buried just because it didn't work out this time.
It will need a clever system behind it, and even while the Dota workshop does a lot of things right, some things are pretty much impossible in it's current state. Like for instance mod members joining later on, adjusting the shares accordingly. Other members leaving, their content being replaced, so their shares should be replaced as well. And so on, it is a highly complicated topic, but i do think it is possible and would give creators the possiblity to not being dependent on a studiojob just to work in games.
Skyrim was just a poor choice of springboard, as their modding community was already intact, and that community wasn't particularly open for disruption.
There ARE possibilities with this, but they need to be more carefully chosen and implemented, and built from the ground up, rather than "tacked-on" after a few years.
It's a waaay different game with a different business model.
Cosmetic items drove the entire revenue of what is essentially a competitive Multiplayer F2P game.
Skyrim is a Single Player game where everyone already paid $60, and has a long history with their modding community.
Gotcha, I'm not familiar enough with either. Thanks
Let me be clear - My point was that mods have never ever been that last bastion of innocence, they've never been untouchable by greed, and they've certainly never always just been a hobby to people who make them.
I agree, there's a difference between weapon mods and a total conversion, but don't think that every guy who makes weapons only is doing it just for fun. Many of them are doing it to build an online "brand" for themselves, which will help propel them to bigger better things.
Personally, I think valve/steam have done a really good job of opening up alternative means to fund game development. Paid workshops and early access games have made a huge amount of high quality independent game content possible. The contract I am working on now, The Forest, wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the early access system. More flexible ways to monetize game development is a good thing.
Hopefully Valve can do a better job of communicating the up side to customers. Also, hopefully their next attempt at paid mods will be curated, at least initially, to help start things off on the right foot.
I really enjoyed the community packs for this reason. I purchased the maps knowing that they would work properly for the foreseeable future and the fact that they had to be held to a certain quality.
Putting the practical, legal and monetary issues to one side for a moment, I would love to see skilled developers have a viable route to create original, ambitious content for pre-existing games.
For instance, I'm a huge GTA fan, but sometimes I grow weary of similar-feeling characters, dialogue and scenarios (that's Rockstar's bread and butter, I can't knock it!). Personally, I feel like those worlds are so well realized and bristling with possibilities for different types of characters, stories and gameplay. If there was a way for devs to create new experiences of a professional quality within that existing game world I think it could lead to some really unique and compelling content.
At that point a game could become more of a platform for a broader range of experiences, which would give games a longer shelf-life and encourage developers to support and develop their modding communities.
This is all pie in the sky admittedly, but I'd love to play through an experience in GTA V that was reminiscent of True Detective, or Backdraft, or Fargo, or Jaws or any number of different scenarios. To have those familiar worlds given new life through skilled creators with a unique take on the game would really be something.
http://kotaku.com/valve-cancels-paid-mods-for-skyrim-1700526130
Requascat In Pace
No idea how I got 50% cut into my head (wishful thinking?). Valve takes the lion's share there. But it's at least profitable ... because, ya know. Hats. Hats won't stop working unless someone at Valve fucks around with the rig.
Yup. I don't even play CS:GO that much and I bought them, because a) support fellows I know make fun stuff and b) can be sure it's not abandoned 2 months later.
This is in the realm of mods of course.
oXYnary - In terms of modding I look at professionals as those who are making their living off the storefront. There are a number of people who solely work through making Dota cosmetic items. I would consider these people to be professionals in the way that it is their full time job or in some cases people in the industry currently, who are creating professional grade items.
I can't help but feel like we're missing out because while a great number of people will mod for the love of modding there are others that need more justification. Their product can still have soul, but some people just won't justify spending their time working on something in their free time when they already spend 8-10+ hours a day modeling for their day job. Knowing that you could make something back worth your time or even turn it into a full time endeavor is a great opportunity and it is something we've seen take off first hand on the Dota2 sub-forum.
People were genuinely angry that the future version of skyUI was going to cost them a petty fee no matter how good the actual mod is, and then they throw hyperboles around about how skyrim is completely unplayable without this mod.
So result being: working on bethesda mods means the community will resist the very idea of monetizing mods through all time.
Edit: I made a bad blanket accusation, so I'm going to fess up and say shot my mouth off there.
Point is, the excuse "We don't make content for free." Is a terrible excuse when the service is bad and ill-implemented. When a community like Skyrim modding is built on free content, don't expect it to end pleasantly as Valve just found out.
Is that pound of flesh worth reputation and dissonance? Hell no, and neither is the "holy than thou" attitude. I get it, we get paid beans as artists and I know that every bit counts. But you don't slash your customers and potential customers throats.
Are gamers entitled? Hell yes, but in this case they've got every reason to be.
The mod scene for Skyrim? A glorious, bug-ridden, and copyright infested nest. It was a disaster when money was thrown into the scene. Other's have said it: Mods were free for actual legal reasons, passion, or practice, but that resulted in cross pollination of mods and assets.
The problem? The modding scene is a giant web and a mess too. Make mods from just mods into proper, working 3rd party DLC, but they couldn't even do that. And neither is it ethical or good practice to sell your customer a potential bug and compatibility land mine.
And the sad thing? I actually was excited about this until the bloody details came out. Valve and Bethesda just did everyone a disfavor. And frankly, gamers have properly spoken and I back their fire and vitriol. In my opinion, there can be a market for paid "Mods" but, that being first, they've got to work and be cross-independent from other mods or DLC. Good products engender good will, but taking stuff that people not only took for granted, but was literally ingrained in the modder and gamer aspect of Skyrim? Explosions waiting to happen.
You want a profitable user generated market place? Make it work, make it stable, and make it proper. This is an example of how not to do it. I like money, but I'm not going to take money from my customers for ill gain, or built on shitty ethics. I give a damn about gamers because I am one, and as an entitled Gamer I'm damn pissed at the shitty mess delivered.
As a working artist and newbie game artist, it actually hurts us when we decide our pockets are more important than the gamers who make everything possible and many modders who do it for passion or practice. Many modders just had their names slung with mud, and I'm no hurry to do the same.
In the end, goodwill can't simply be bought, and and can be lost easily with badly planned gaffes.
Nobody is saying that Beth or Valve did a good job with customer relations. Stop making strawmen.
I'll admit I was wrong there, and changed my post to reflect me being an idiot and recusing myself.
Nobody has suggested that all mods be paid. I am sure there are modders out there who have poured a huge amount of time and energy into development who would love the option to sell their work. Also, consider how much higher quality a paid mod could become when the developers can afford to hire people to do the things they aren't particularly good at. At some point, the distinction between mods and games becomes moot. Most of us work on games that use a middleware engine. Mods just take that concept further by piggy backing on the gameplay and content developed by another studio. I don't understand why this is perceived so differently than paid indie games.
The best way to understand something is to think of it from the other side, like a devil's advocate. Theres likely to be many who think the opposite: that making all the content of an original indie game is taking it much further than making a change to an existing game's scripts or assets. Even Steam treats the two things differently. Indie games have Steam Greenlight, where they essentially have to compete and get the community to vote them into the store while paying $100 first. There's some level of standards that a a game has to reach in order to even make it to distribution. The workshop is a different beast. Its a chaotic free-for-all for anyone to partake in. As a result people aren't finding the shining crowns of modding there (the Counter Strikes and the like), instead they're seeing the expensive horse vaginas and the $1 extra apples that were filling it up in protest.
When people pay for a finished stand alone game (Indie or AAA), they probably expect it to work as the game developers intended. From my own experiences addons have not worked that way because the whole point is to change the game, and it usually doesn't go through all the QA that an official patch would. I couldn't count the number of cool looking weapons and armor I've downloaded for Skyrim, only to soon remove them upon realizing how unbalanced they made the game. It's easy to switch back to a vanilla glass axe when there's no money involved, having paid for a specific add on would make me feel much more locked-in.
Now I don't think you have to agree with any of that, personally I like the thought of getting paid for any contributions I would make. But I don't think it is hard at all to at least understand why so many people would perceive paying for a mod differently than paying for an indie game.
Well, I said in my rant, that I support the idea of paid content. Catch 22, is that it needs to actually meet expectations when throw money into it. Sell shitty stuff, and bam, reputation for shitty products and it's a ripoff. Means less money and goodwill in the long run.
When money is committed, we should raise the bar. Customers who are treated badly react by throwing us under the bus. Unless you want to be considered the Wal-Mart of gaming.
We have to avoid being arrogant. And I find it appalling that some devs are haughty enough to call gamers entitled concerning the nature of Skyrim's chaotic modding. Frankly, we have no rights to entitlement in this case. In fact, I think we'd be wise to note why this event went horribly wrong.
Nice ideas, but the public review system might not work. It needs only one person to subjectively hate your mod idea, to rally other people behind him and cause a small shitstorm by a small but loud minority. Thats not a matter of quality, personal taste plays a big role in the community. And at times the upset rally, just to be upset. And then hell breaks lose, ever recieved deaththreats in the dozens?
We have been part in a shitstorm, because of a purely cosmetical set for dota, believe me it is no fun. And the sales showed, that the vocal crowd was a minority, but damn have they been pissed.
By now it clearly showed, that we in fact did not destroy dota or the workshop, and even valve did create an update that supports our lore (maybe on purpose, maybe by accident), who would have guessed...
Just look at what happened this time, it will happen again and for far minor reasons...
@AtomicChikkin: but the reputation issue, the bad producs and ripoffs, are the bad mods then. Not the original game, thats a thing people have to learn then. Good modding crews will get a reputation and they will work to keep this reputation and their fanbase. Shitty mods and ripoffs will have to be marked as that, but it should not have any influence on the original game's reputation.
If I am going to be honest if the cost of having the workshop far more open, mostly running itself, and not curated (which results in Valve having their little group of favourites and making it difficult for new modders to come in) is that there is an occasional witch hunt and a few ruffled feathers then frankly I don't care. Accept that you if you wan't to make money, make high quality mainstream accepted content or risk a witch hunt and accept that just like a company you need to react quickly if you see such a thing coming. I might be wrong on this, but with the sheer size that Skyrim's paid workshop could be I don't think curation is an entirely realistic solution.
-edit- To continue, Dota is a very different in this regard, everybody is forced to see accepted content because it's a multiplayer game. I can't see these same witch hunts on a single player game, if you don't like some lore breaking mod...don't buy it and you will never see it.
and who is the community? the overwhelming majority of players who just want to enjoy their game or a very loud minority?
I don't want to make this about us, but we once have been in that situation and it sucks and is plain wrong.
For comparison the said set, sold in the tens of thousands (and is still selling, not razy good, but still) without complaints and about a hundred people have been very very loud about how much they hate it.
I can totally understand if people dislike something, but if the vast majority of workshop participants voted for something, don't try to start a witch hunt. And especially don't try to hunt down peoples personal emails and threaten them - thats no viable behaviour in ANY situation. Ever.
I realise that it must suck, and I can't say I have been there. But surely you agree as I said, this shouldn't be such an issue on a single player game where everybody doesn't have to see the added content. The main reason these shit storms occur in Dota is people up in arms about having to see pink ursa sets or lore breaking content which they think is going to turn a game with a consistent artstyle into a TF2esque shitshow.
Either way if the cost of avoiding the occasional witch hunt (which as I said I think should be less frequent, although I can see it happen over stolen content) is that less people are able to access the store front, that there is less freedom with your content and Valve or Beth wish to take more of a cut to curate it then I personally don't think it's worth it.
For those of us who see "paid mods" or "community made DLC" as a good thing, please head over to the Bethsoft forums, there is a decent amount of discussion going on about how the system could have been better and Bethesda devs are occasionally posting. Who knows, you might influence the shaping of a better deal for content creators going into the future, paid mods will be back, if not with TES then with other franchises.
Here are some threads:
Shamelessly by me..
Fix the implemention but bring back community made DLC
Another:
What is Bethesda thinking now? - The role of a publisher
An unfortunately closed thread with a good OP.
Artist's Rights Matter - Bring Back Paid Modding
lets ignore the whole mess about the workshop, the rates etc. it happened with skyrim, the singleplayer game, peoples info has been doxed and people have been threatened personally. The internet is the internet and people are people, and someone will find something to start a witchhunt.
I don't think you can lump tool extensions and mods in the same bucket....
MW2 with its 50mil dev cost and 200mil advertising cost.
Top. Fucking. Kek.
I assume the marketing budget also includes paying people to create the advertisements in the first place, COD has produced a lot of live action trailers with visual effects. Add music licensing fees on top of that; CoD Ghosts seemed to have some deal with Eminem to release on of his songs as a pre-order bonus of the game. That couldn't have been cheap.
Yup, plus just making a live action mixed with CG commercial often costs a million or two, and something like COD made a lot of different commercials and trailers. There were probably 5 advertising studios involved, and all of them take their cuts.
You're paying for print pieces. You're paying for PR. You're paying Twitch "stars" to stream and talk about your game and youtubers to make videos about you.
You're doing PR stunts. You're trying to make your e3 booth amazing.
200 million is a lot for sure, but burning 50 million is easy.
Well, the original "rep" for the game is history. The reputation refers to the company, community, and modders involved. Skyrim is Skyrim. The community and modders are a separate issue.
But it does have the potential to affect future Bethesda titles.
[ame]
So,Totalbiscuit has an interesting conversation with a modder and the founder of Nexus.
Also checked out the thread in the Bethsoft forums. Glad the devs and community are engaged in a healthy discussion after the clustferfuck.
It's funny until you see that they make it all back and are profitable within 40 minutes of the game hitting shelves.
Yeah absolutely.
I'm also kinda blown away by the dev/advertising costs for FFVII.
Seriously. Consumers are seemingly unaware or uninterested in this fact. They just want the same amount of content they got in 15 years ago, with the best production value modern hardware can afford, and they don't want to pay more.
Would your rather that instead of seeing the movie and getting a $3 option later for more content, instead you simply got the same movie and no option to see more content?
I would definitely not want any more content - but then that's not always how DLC works. Sometimes thet like to insert that extra ten minutes somewhere in the middle of the story, which is pretty rotten.
thats exactly what happens with movies since ages, cut out scenes, directors cuts and so on you always buy something extra with the dvd vs the cinema experience
I definitely see where you are coming from, but something I've been wondering about is, should the customers really care about this? The costs have been ballooning over time, but is that increase proportional to the quality of games as viewed by the average user?
Also, was such sharp increase in dev costs even necessary in the first place? Or was it a side-effect of an arms-race for higher fidelity that no one really needed?
I ask this is because when it comes to my own game-playing habits, I find little connection between the high fidelity of graphics, animation, sound, etc. and my own enjoyment of the game. To put it plainly, I've played some AAA games that bored me to death and plenty of lower-budget titles that I had immense fun with. I also go back to older games every now and then and I find myself enjoying them just as much as I do recent titles. All of that is despite me knowing how much time, effort and skill goes into making a current gen title. Despite me being able to appreciate high-budget games on a technical level it has little effect on my enjoyment of them.
We could make gamers aware that game dev costs have risen 2-3 times, but I think that many will see it as a poor justification. The question they will probably ask is, are games 2-3 times better?
okay they sell you the product with the dlc in a bundle, but you can still pay more for more content
If anything, I was actually pleasantly surprised to see some good coverage of this debacle on Kotaku. Goes to show that they really are trying to change for the better over there.