Starker on 25/4/2015 at 05:31
Ah, I didn't know the standard Workshop cut is 30%. But I don't think Valve gets a flat 30% in this case. I think it's more likely that Valve gets a percentage cut from whatever is left over after paying the author(s) of the mod. Otherwise, it would scale very badly for the developer and all the developers will be incentivised to set the cut very low for modders.
Pyrian on 25/4/2015 at 05:59
Quote Posted by Starker
I think it's more likely that Valve gets a percentage cut from whatever is left over after paying the author(s) of the mod.
Really? You effectively think Valve won't demand its cut of the author's share? It's either going to demand its cut of both shares, or just take its cut up front. Since it's not doing the former, I'm guessing it's doing the latter. After all, they're just taking 30% off the top before it goes anywhere. They're not going to essentially reduce that for the modders.
Quote Posted by Starker
Otherwise, it would scale very badly for the developer and all the developers will be incentivised to set the cut very low for modders.
Mmm. Very low, like maybe 25%? ;)
Jason Moyer on 25/4/2015 at 07:11
Quote Posted by Starker
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.
I'd love to see some actual RoI info in regards to games having mod support, because I'd imagine it would be a hell of a lot lower than most people think it is.
TafferLing on 25/4/2015 at 07:38
I'm buying all Thief FMs and put Squeeky's secret at the base price of 99c, then we will work our pricing from there.
WingedKagouti on 25/4/2015 at 08:46
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. From the Skyrim toolset EULA (bolds mine):
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."
The thing is, depending on where you live that paragraph may or may not be rendered void due to local laws. Hell, even the usual "You agree to be bound by the rules of [insert place that makes everything work like they want it to]"-clause may be void due to local laws where the mod creator lives. A fairly common clause in every EULA is (paraphrased) "Even if parts of this is rendered void by local laws, the rest still stands".
Stuff like this is unfortunately not as simple as looking up the license for the toolset, you need to know the local laws (including any precedents in court) on the subject as well.
Fafhrd on 25/4/2015 at 08:48
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I'd love to see some actual RoI info in regards to games having mod support, because I'd imagine it would be a hell of a lot lower than most people think it is.
The RoI for that is really hard to calculate because generally it takes the form of an increased tail on game sales, so you'd have to go off the earnings in something like a 5 year period, then see if there are any spikes that coincide with mod releases. And even there aren't any, that doesn't necessarily mean that modding had no effect, since it's also possible/likely that the curve would've been steeper had there not been mod tools. This is also why games shipping with mod tools decreased so much over the past 10 years or so: bean counters couldn't conclusively prove that the RoI was worth it, especially when the push for annual or bi-annual releases in franchises became a thing.
Things like DayZ which lead to
massive sales bumps are super rare.
Dev_Anj on 25/4/2015 at 09:35
Quote Posted by WingedKagouti
Stuff like this is unfortunately not as simple as looking up the license for the toolset, you need to know the local laws (including any precedents in court) on the subject as well.
Well, EULAs can be overridden by court decisions and they aren't the absolute rule of law. They're helpful for knowing what general policies apply, but they aren't the final authority on matters that affect the consumer.
Starker on 25/4/2015 at 14:14
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Really? You effectively think Valve won't demand its cut of the author's share?
Yes. It's not that they won't, but they can't, according to the terms of the contact. Also, don't overestimate the power Valve has in these negotiations -- they have to convince the developers to get on board, not the other way around.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Mmm. Very low, like maybe 25%? ;)
And that's why I say that it's not the best way to go about it. If this is the most that modders can get, this might kill the initiative before it has even a chance to survive.
Pyrian on 25/4/2015 at 16:18
Quote Posted by Starker
It's not that they won't, but they can't, according to the terms of the contact.
I'm not sure if you didn't understand me or I don't understand you. By taking a flat cut from the gross, they are effectively taking a cut of all shares, which is exactly what they do with everything else. You seem to claiming that they're going to effectively
waive their share of the
modders portion at the
publishers behest, apparently on the belief that the publishers really really want their modders (and not themselves) to get a better deal.
Quote Posted by Starker
If this is the most that modders can get, this might kill the initiative before it has even a chance to survive.
Let's see, how's the modding community been doing on flat out nothing?
Starker on 25/4/2015 at 17:11
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I'm not sure if you didn't understand me or I don't understand you. By taking a flat cut from the gross, they are effectively taking a cut of all shares, which is exactly what they do with everything else. You seem to claiming that they're going to effectively
waive their share of the
modders portion at the
publishers behest, apparently on the belief that the publishers really really want their modders (and not themselves) to get a better deal.
Yes, I am inclined to believe that they might have several tiers and options that they put on the table for developers/publishers. Not because I believe publishers are good people, but because otherwise (by Valve already taking a rather substantial cut beforehand) this might easily make it into a game of screw over the customer and Valve is generally smarter than that. But of course without facts this is mere speculation on my part as much as your belief of a 25/30/45 cut.
For example, they might have a deal where the cut is 25/25/50 (Modder/Valve/Dev), a deal where the cut is 40/20/40, and deal where the cut is 50/15/35.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Let's see, how's the modding community been doing on flat out nothing?
They haven't had much success raising money, that's for sure. And I didn't say this will kill the modding community. As I said earlier, there will always be free mods. What I mean is that this might kill Valve's effort of making this a sustainable way of monetising mods.
