Steam Monetizes Mods - TTLG Forums

heywood on 24/4/2015 at 20:48

I am surprised by the number of modders putting files up on sites like Nexus without a copyright declaration and license terms. The site has a no-porting rule and most mods have a sentence or two on permissions. But without a declaration of copyright, one still might conclude that people who are posting mods there are essentially putting their work into the public domain and hoping the site admins and other modders will abide by their wishes. Why aren't people using one of the Creative Commons licenses?

Nameless Voice on 24/4/2015 at 21:06

Before doing this, shouldn't they see about making a proper mod management infrastructure first?

You don't want to get Skyrim mods on Steam, because they are not managed. It's a mess. You need to use one of the third-party mod managers so you can actually keep proper track of the mods and uninstall them again if necessary.

Making mods monetised also forces people to get them through this system rather than the better avenues currently available.

Fafhrd on 24/4/2015 at 23:35

Quote Posted by Starker

Edit: that said, though, I don't think this is the best way of going about it. Bethesda setting the revenue share to 25%/75% seems a bit money-grubby,

When you consider that it's a 25/30/45 modder/Valve/Dev split, 25% is actually pretty generous.

demagogue on 25/4/2015 at 00:04

Quote Posted by heywood

I am surprised by the number of modders putting files up on sites like Nexus without a copyright declaration and license terms.

This is the kind of thing I was assuming. Modders hardly do anything formal, for assets and IP, for setting up heirarchy and priority in their ranks so some team members are inherently better than others, for submitting weekly work reports... These are the kinds of things that make modders bewildered or gag. It's fine for free stuff, but money doesn't mix well with it.

I'm open to see how it plays out over time. I like Skyrim mods, so I'm miffed they started with a game I cared about. For the other games I might not care so much & tolerate it. For Thief and DarkMod I'd probably throw a fit and recommend that we keep our ancient policy that FMs will always be free.

Fafhrd on 25/4/2015 at 00:30

Quote Posted by heywood

I am surprised by the number of modders putting files up on sites like Nexus without a copyright declaration and license terms.

For the most part, they don't actually have the right to. Generally, the license terms for the game they're modding state that the modders don't actually have any rights for their mods. From the Skyrim toolset EULA (bolds mine):

Quote:

You may not cause or permit the sale or other commercial distribution or commercial exploitation (e.g., by renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, disseminating, uploading, downloading, transmitting, whether on a pay-per-play basis or otherwise) of any New Materials without the express prior written consent of an authorized representative of Bethesda Softworks. ... You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials.

The whole kerfluffle over Chesko's Fishing Mod using Fores' animation system is meaningless, because Fores doesn't actually have the right to say "this is mine and you can't use it in your paid mod."

Dev_Anj on 25/4/2015 at 01:30

Quote Posted by Fafhrd

For the most part, they don't actually have the right to. Generally, the license terms for the game they're modding state that the modders don't actually have any rights for their mods.

So basically they won't have any legal resources to fight against their mods being pirated? How will the system function then? I'm sure Bethesda will be changing some things, or start claiming these mods as their own.

Jason Moyer on 25/4/2015 at 02:30

I'm more surprised that Bethesda is allowing the monetization of mods than I am by other publishers or Valve not following suit. Then again, I'm surprised most companies allow modding at all, not to mention the number who actively facilitate it.

I'm also surprised at the number of people who develop content and don't realize that the owners of the game they're modding own the intellectual rights to their work and could monetize it themselves if they wanted to.

What Bethesda is doing is so good for the people who create mod content for their games that I can't believe anyone is complaining about it. People are complaining that mod catalogs would become a mess of garbage you'd have to wade through; that's not already the case? Other people are concerned that person B is going to release content that includes work by person A; guess what, neither of those people own that work, Zenimax does, and it's kind of them to not only allow you to make that stuff but to let you earn cash from it as well. It seems pretty likely that whoever is spearheading this move at Zenimax has already thought of that situation and has a plan on how they'll deal with people using content without permission from other people's work.

Fafhrd on 25/4/2015 at 03:31

I think the biggest confusion is differentiation between contributions and dependencies. Wet and Cold originally contained a bunch of items made by different people, which made it clearly fall under the Group Contributions part of the new Workshop policy, and the guy who put it up was required to contact all those people and get their permission to monetize it, and work out revenue splitting between everyone.

But the Fishing Mod had a dependency on FNIS. From what I understand, FNIS is more of a tool than it is an asset pack, and the new animations used in the fishing mod which were made possible by FNIS were not themselves created by Fores. Fores throwing a shit fit over their inclusion in a paid mod was a dick move on his part (and again, not one that he actually had any legal right to make), and would be roughly akin to the Blender Foundation coming out and saying that nobody is allowed to make money off of stuff made in Blender.

Starker on 25/4/2015 at 04:31

Quote Posted by Fafhrd

When you consider that it's a 25/30/45 modder/Valve/Dev split, 25% is actually pretty generous.

Yeah, of course Valve is going to get a cut. They are hosting this bloody thing, after all. Where did you hear 25/30/45, though? Neither Valve or Bethesda are typically eager to disclose such numbers.

But anyway, giving only 25% is going to make this far less popular and it's already an uphill struggle as it is. Modding is in the developer's best interest, as it increases the value of the game by improving the quality and/or variety in it. So it would make sense to encourage it as best as possible, especially considering this is a pittance for Bethesda.

Fafhrd on 25/4/2015 at 05:04

Quote Posted by Starker

It's 25 to the modder, 75 split between Bethsoft and Valve. Valve has stated that they're only taking their standard Workshop cut, which, while never officially confirmed by Valve or stated by anyone who sells on Steam for NDA reasons, is generally accepted to be around 30%, which leaves 45% to Bethesda.