Valve / Steam / Steam Machines, General Discussion v2.0- "Is Steam Down again?" - Games

[QUOTE=EliaMoroes;47584651]Regarding the legal side of things, the thing is extremely shady As a law student, I can safely say that using the assets of someone's else product to produce something and charge for it isn't exactly legal It's like that Spongebob episode where Patrick starts buying Crabby Patties and reselling them at a higer price for his own profit[/QUOTE] Ditto on the studying part. I've had some lectures about copyright and patent law and given the nature of mods, this should classify as breach, unless a direct and legitimate permission has been given by copyright's holder. A general "Sure, we enabled feature on Steam, so anyone can do it" statement doesn't substitute that kind of permission. It's more like cession in a sense that Developers allow anyone to use part/large part of their work, including using it for monetary purposes. I'd love to see court rule like so, so that Bethesda and Valve got burned by Skyrim going into public domain. Unlikely, but still hilarious. EDIT: I know, Skyrim public domain, dumb, but I am just wishing for a strong court ruling that would curb this kind of shit. There are limited ways to influence large companies that do this stuff, one is refusing to purchase their products, i.e. slow and indirect way, and another is law, which is more volatile, but carries a punch.

I think the worst thing about this is that some formerly free mods (Wet and Cold, a few others) are now being taken off Skyrim Nexus to be sold on Steam. Free stuff is now costing money. I'd be fine with a donate button and apparently Skyrim modders had received donations in the past, but it seems so fucking dirty to do this.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;47585278]I think the worst thing about this is that some formerly free mods (Wet and Cold, a few others) are now being taken off Skyrim Nexus to be sold on Steam. Free stuff is now costing money. I'd be fine with a donate button and apparently Skyrim modders had received donations in the past, but it seems so fucking dirty to do this.[/QUOTE] Given how many video games companies also go the "cash-cow" DLC route, trying to quite blatantly sucker out as much money from customers as possible, how can modders actually think it's a sound idea? I mean, if non-free mod requires a DLC, doesn't it just make it a DLC for a DLC? Or any buyable mod a DLC with no official support?

To voice a potentially unpopular opinion: it seems pretty dumb to decide there's some arbitrary point on the spectrum of game-creation that it suddenly becomes immoral to charge money. Like, make your own engine and assets, moral to sell. License an engine, but make your own code and assets, moral to sell. License an engine, write your own code, outsource the assets to someone else, moral. Sell assets to someone else for them to use in the game they plan to sell, moral. Sell assets as a mod to user, EVIL AND WRONG. Sell mod on Steam Store (à la Gmod), moral. Sell mod on Steam Workshop, ban this sick filth. C'mon. I'm sure plenty of people will still give stuff away for free, but it's not a radical notion that people who produce quality work ought to get paid. I don't see why it's any less virtuous that someone could sell their high-quality armour model in Skyrim than for them to sell the exact same bit of work as part of an indie game.

[QUOTE=Tokagero;47584544]Donation, Patron, Kickstarter, anything that doesn't involve shitty choice for a mod developer (do I go all communism on this and give out for free, or do I ask for at least something in return) and shitty choice for a player (do I trust this will be supported ? Will it break after a bit? What if game gets abandoned by developers ? What if it conflicts with another mod? What if there will be free version of it ?)[/QUOTE] It all really just boils down to how the person actually handles the donations and development really.

[QUOTE=aiusepsi;47586052]To voice a potentially unpopular opinion: it seems pretty dumb to decide there's some arbitrary point on the spectrum of game-creation that it suddenly becomes immoral to charge money. Like, make your own engine and assets, moral to sell. License an engine, but make your own code and assets, moral to sell. License an engine, write your own code, outsource the assets to someone else, moral. Sell assets to someone else for them to use in the game they plan to sell, moral. Sell assets as a mod to user, EVIL AND WRONG. Sell mod on Steam Store (à la Gmod), moral. Sell mod on Steam Workshop, ban this sick filth. C'mon. I'm sure plenty of people will still give stuff away for free, but it's not a radical notion that people who produce quality work ought to get paid. I don't see why it's any less virtuous that someone could sell their high-quality armour model in Skyrim than for them to sell the exact same bit of work as part of an indie game.[/QUOTE] What gets me confused is when you use content from the game as part of the mod. For example, say you are making a TF2 mod for skybox models for mappers to use. In order to save time you might want to re-use valve's TF2 textures for these buildings. This allows the models to maintain consistent with the art style of the game, being that it IS the art style of the game, but could you then go ahead with selling the mod? It contains content that isn't yours, but it's from a game that you mod. So does it still count?

[QUOTE=EliaMoroes;47584651]As a law student, I can safely say that using the assets of someone's else product to produce something and charge for it isn't exactly legal It's like that Spongebob episode where Patrick starts buying Crabby Patties and reselling them at a higer price for his own profit[/QUOTE] Ah yes, I remember that lecture.

So I'm hearing rumors that people's donation links are being removed on the workshop descriptions.

[QUOTE=Rob3k;47590320]So I'm hearing rumors that people's donation links are being removed on the workshop descriptions.[/QUOTE] [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1462211&p=47589815&viewfull=1#post47589815[/url]

[QUOTE=Rob3k;47590320]So I'm hearing rumors that people's donation links are being removed on the workshop descriptions.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161389696&postcount=196[/url] seemingly debunked

I sort of wonder why mods are a pure, loving artform that must only be created of love and passion, while with other UGC (Youtube Let's Plays, Twitch Livestreams etc.) you're considered an insane control freak if you [I]don't[/I] allow people to make a comfortable living wage off of it?

[QUOTE=The Kins;47591931]I sort of wonder why mods are a pure, loving artform that must only be created of love and passion, while with other UGC (Youtube Let's Plays, Twitch Livestreams etc.) you're considered an insane control freak if you [I]don't[/I] allow people to make a comfortable living wage off of it?[/QUOTE] How many times are you going to compare this to something so bizarrely different? You don't pay to watch TotalBiscuits videos, there's just ads around them. [editline]24th April 2015[/editline] It's like comparing apples to fucking french fries

[QUOTE=The Kins;47591931]I sort of wonder why mods are a pure, loving artform that must only be created of love and passion, while with other UGC (Youtube Let's Plays, Twitch Livestreams etc.) you're considered an insane control freak if you [I]don't[/I] allow people to make a comfortable living wage off of it?[/QUOTE] True but here's the kicker, people don't have to pay to watch yotube videos, while yes, modders, this uproar here comes mostly from something that was once free is now not free and that's always disappointing. Something you could once have you can now no longer have, that's annoying for anyone even if it WAS worth paying for.

There are some people who just are annoyed by prospect of paying for mods, and a sole argument that "they were free, they have to be free" is for the most part futile, as mods are content just like anything else. The real problems with this whole issue are : - Valve's overwhelming 75% cut. - copyright issues with minor mods that are very derivative/iterative works, and how can someone profit off of another person's property without directly, explicit consent - blatant abuse of the system that is barely moderated (Valve...) and allows for mod theft, mandatory steam usage, having to scan workshop for your own work to ensure it's not being stolen, etc - complete lack of accountability and safety, whereby modders have no obligation to update, support or fix their mods, even if people pay for them. Developers can also make existing mods completely impossible to function with patches / fixes, rendering purchase useless - etc Those who scream at modders for being greedy for even wanting any kind of compensation are just as wrong as those who support this system on the base that nothing like that should ever be free. It's not the idea that's wrong here, it's Valve's implementation.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;47591967]You don't pay to watch TotalBiscuits videos, there's just ads around them.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=thisguy123;47592100]True but here's the kicker, people don't have to pay to watch yotube videos[/QUOTE]Would you use ad-supported mods? Granted, advermods already exist (see: Valve's L4D2 mods promoting Brutal Legend and RE6), and adfly links are rife throughout the Minecraft community, but I'm vaguely curious. What would an ad-supported mod even entail, for that matter? Mandatory video ads to reach a download link? "BOUGHT TO YOU BY PEPSI" post-its on your shiny new axe? Video ads on load screens? It's a fun dystopia to conjure up! Oh, and it looks like the pay mods seem to currently be inaccessible, so I'm guessing the system's being twiddled with. As all new Steam systems are after they inevitably collapse into a horrifying mess.

Nexus already has ads all over the place. You don't get anything less for using adblock either, just a note asking for donations. Advertisements on a webpage are nothing new and won't be an issue as long as they follow a simple set of rules: -No sound -Doesn't cover page -Does not infect computer with malware Which is all already in google adsense's basic rules.

[QUOTE=Tokagero;47592109]The real problems with this whole issue are : - Valve's overwhelming 75% cut. - copyright issues with minor mods that are very derivative/iterative works, and how can someone profit off of another person's property without directly, explicit consent [/quote] These two points are related. Valve only takes their usual cut (believed to be 30%), then the modder gets 25%, Bethesda gets 45%. Bethesda gets their cut in large part because a mod's a derivative work. You can easily argue that Bethesda's cut is too high, but that's not a fault with the system per se. [quote]- blatant abuse of the system that is barely moderated (Valve...) and allows for mod theft, mandatory steam usage, having to scan workshop for your own work to ensure it's not being stolen, etc[/quote] People uploading stuff that doesn't belong to them is a problem everywhere on the web. Expecting an individual mod developer to keep up with DMCA takedowns on things is going to be tough. Legitimate problem, but not a unique one to Valve. In the long run, Valve will probably have to implement something like Youtube's ContentID system. [quote]Developers can also make existing mods completely impossible to function with patches / fixes, rendering purchase useless[/quote] You could argue that now the developer's getting paid for mod purchases, they will be a little more careful to avoid poisoning the well.

In other news, someone noticed Blender is now on Steam software. [url]http://store.steampowered.com/app/365670/[/url]

[QUOTE=aiusepsi;47592451]These two points are related. Valve only takes their usual cut (believed to be 30%), then the modder gets 25%, Bethesda gets 45%. Bethesda gets their cut in large part because a mod's a derivative work. You can easily argue that Bethesda's cut is too high, but that's not a fault with the system per se.[/QUOTE] 25% going to the actual creator is far too low in any circumstance, especially since it doesn't discriminate between a minor, mostly based on existing assets, mod and a complex mod that introduces own assets, creation and code. +Legal side is shady as fuck. Copyright and patent law is tight shit, especially on definitions and limitations. I'd need to dig into actual bill and quote it, but I am pretty sure when it comes to earning money off of derivative/iterative work based on copyright protected material, a broad/general "Ok, go for it, here's our cut" isn't really ok, because the owner of copyright basically dismisses a couple things very important to copyrights, i.e. : care and direct oversight over given copyright. You can make shitty fanfics of Warhammer & Marvel as much as you like, but the moment you start selling them through official/registered methods, if Marvel/Games Workshop doesn't react, next time they might want to use their copyright, court will take into account they didn't give a fuck when someone breached it, thus weakening their claim. There was an affair with Candy Crush company, with the whole "Saga" word copyright, and it was to a degree because of that. If they didn't aggressively pursue their claims, they'd risk weaker future suits against actual breach and copying. I am not 100% sure on the details, which are very very very important here, but I am just half-way through legal studies, so take it as 50% chance I am right here. [QUOTE=aiusepsi;47592451]People uploading stuff that doesn't belong to them is a problem everywhere on the web. Expecting an individual mod developer to keep up with DMCA takedowns on things is going to be tough. Legitimate problem, but not a unique one to Valve. In the long run, Valve will probably have to implement something like Youtube's ContentID system. [/QUOTE] Sure, it's internet after all. But we are talking Steam. Largest digital distribution platform. De-facto PC monopoly service. And it's staff is doing fuck all to prevent basic mischief, abuse and theft. That is wrong both legally and ethically. [QUOTE=aiusepsi;47592451]You could argue that now the developer's getting paid for mod purchases, they will be a little more careful to avoid poisoning the well.[/QUOTE] Why would they? Caring and careful developers, sure, especially indies. What does EA care a mod got fucked ? Ubisoft ? Activision Blizzard ? Thing is, Workshop doesn't obligate anyone to act diligently. Given how spread and particular modding can be, where there are both large/common mods and much smaller but still utilised modifications, I doubt any bigger developer/published is going to ensure that all of these get proper recognition and protection in terms of patches and updates. And then there are conflicts between various mods, people abandoning modding all-together leaving customers with straight-up dead purchase, etc. Now, if developers fucks over modding community over and over, they get hurt in the process because it lessens their game's value. However, now, fewer people will use mods, but those that will might pay for them, so arguably things balance out again, but now there will be people who've spent money on things that simply won't work.

is it just me or have the last two steam updates not had patch notes?

[QUOTE=Tokagero;47593282]You can make shitty fanfics of Warhammer & Marvel as much as you like, but the moment you start selling them through official/registered methods, if Marvel/Games Workshop doesn't react, next time they might want to use their copyright, court will take into account they didn't give a fuck when someone breached it, thus weakening their claim. There was an affair with Candy Crush company, with the whole "Saga" word copyright, and it was to a degree because of that. If they didn't aggressively pursue their claims, they'd risk weaker future suits against actual breach and copying. [/quote] You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright. And in any case, that's unauthorised use. You're allowed to use trademarks if you have been given authorisation to do so. For example: you can put the trademarked Steam logo onto marketing for a game you're selling on Steam, because Valve explicitly allows you to do so. [quote]And it's staff is doing fuck all to prevent basic mischief, abuse and theft. That is wrong both legally and ethically.[/quote] They have a DMCA takedown procedure, so as long as they deal with that in a timely manner they're OK by the law. They thought about this when they designed the law; it's impossible for services at really high scale to ever manually vet everything by hand before it goes up. If they were legally liable, then things like YouTube, Dropbox, Facebook, etc. etc. etc. just could not exist. We'll see if they manage to stay on top of it, but the system is 24 hours old at most. Give it a bit of time before we declare the apocalypse.

[QUOTE=Tokagero;47593282]25% going to the actual creator is far too low in any circumstance, especially since it doesn't discriminate between a minor, mostly based on existing assets, mod and a complex mod that introduces own assets, creation and code. +Legal side is shady as fuck. Copyright and patent law is tight shit, especially on definitions and limitations. I'd need to dig into actual bill and quote it, but I am pretty sure when it comes to earning money off of derivative/iterative work based on copyright protected material, a broad/general "Ok, go for it, here's our cut" isn't really ok, because the owner of copyright basically dismisses a couple things very important to copyrights, i.e. : care and direct oversight over given copyright. You can make shitty fanfics of Warhammer & Marvel as much as you like, but the moment you start selling them through official/registered methods, if Marvel/Games Workshop doesn't react, next time they might want to use their copyright, court will take into account they didn't give a fuck when someone breached it, thus weakening their claim. There was an affair with Candy Crush company, with the whole "Saga" word copyright, and it was to a degree because of that. If they didn't aggressively pursue their claims, they'd risk weaker future suits against actual breach and copying. I am not 100% sure on the details, which are very very very important here, but I am just half-way through legal studies, so take it as 50% chance I am right here. Sure, it's internet after all. But we are talking Steam. Largest digital distribution platform. De-facto PC monopoly service. And it's staff is doing fuck all to prevent basic mischief, abuse and theft. That is wrong both legally and ethically. Why would they? Caring and careful developers, sure, especially indies. [B]What does EA care a mod got fucked ? Ubisoft ? Activision Blizzard ? [/B] Thing is, Workshop doesn't obligate anyone to act diligently. Given how spread and particular modding can be, where there are both large/common mods and much smaller but still utilised modifications, I doubt any bigger developer/published is going to ensure that all of these get proper recognition and protection in terms of patches and updates. And then there are conflicts between various mods, people abandoning modding all-together leaving customers with straight-up dead purchase, etc. Now, if developers fucks over modding community over and over, they get hurt in the process because it lessens their game's value. However, now, fewer people will use mods, but those that will might pay for them, so arguably things balance out again, but now there will be people who've spent money on things that simply won't work.[/QUOTE] these aren't the guys that would allow sold mods anyways the licensing agreement for workshop publishers(developers) isn't publicly available, but i'm sure the legal team at valve knows just a teeny bit more about US licensing law than a fp poster from poland [editline]24th April 2015[/editline] re: your 25% thing [quote]The percentage of Adjusted Gross Revenue that you are entitled to receive will [B]be determined by the developer/publisher of the Application[/B] associated with the Workshop to which you have submitted your Contribution (“Publisher”), and will be described on the applicable Workshop page.[/quote]

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;47593619]these aren't the guys that would allow sold mods anyways the licensing agreement for workshop publishers(developers) isn't publicly available, but i'm sure the legal team at valve knows just a teeny bit more about US licensing law than a fp poster from poland [editline]24th April 2015[/editline] re: your 25% thing[/QUOTE] Well, they were smart enough to update their Steam EULA when European courts ruled that digital goods should be treated like physical goods in terms of ownership and rights (mostly reselling), so they forced the "service" approach in EULA and prohibited group suits on these basis under threat of permanent account removal. I am not legal expert, but I know Valve will go for loopholes or stretch things. 25% is the revenue set for Skyrim, or at least that's what people claiming to be modders submitting paid mods have said so. I don't have better proof, but the number does flow around enough, with no apparent alternatives being suggested. It could be different for other games, as it's all left to the developer. Tripwire for one prohibited, in their EULA update, paid mods all together.

I just found out workshop doesn't use steam wallet and it actually requires your bank account info even for free mods, what the hell. Valve going full retard with each passing month here.

[QUOTE=aiusepsi;47593434]You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright. And in any case, that's unauthorised use. You're allowed to use trademarks if you have been given authorisation to do so. For example: you can put the trademarked Steam logo onto marketing for a game you're selling on Steam, because Valve explicitly allows you to do so. [/QUOTE] My bad on the example. [QUOTE=aiusepsi;47593434]They have a DMCA takedown procedure, so as long as they deal with that in a timely manner they're OK by the law. They thought about this when they designed the law; it's impossible for services at really high scale to ever manually vet everything by hand before it goes up. If they were legally liable, then things like YouTube, Dropbox, Facebook, etc. etc. etc. just could not exist. We'll see if they manage to stay on top of it, but the system is 24 hours old at most. Give it a bit of time before we declare the apocalypse.[/QUOTE] I guess you are right here, however the introduction of paying for mods on workshop basically introduced the problem. Previously, worst case scenario, if someone stole a mod and posted in on another site, author lost potential recognition/feedback. Now they lose money whether they agree with incentive or not.

[QUOTE=spectator1;47593787]I just found out workshop doesn't use steam wallet and it actually requires your bank account info even for free mods, what the hell. Valve going full retard with each passing month here.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure it's because you're putting money into another bank account Since I don't think they want steam currency being exported by users, only via game titles and their developers

Valve definitely saved PC gaming with Steam, but now, they are going to kill it... Maybe not a bad idea, but horribly executed :/

[QUOTE=MR.sugar;47596016]Valve definitely saved PC gaming with Steam, but now, they are going to kill it... Maybe not a bad idea, but horribly executed :/[/QUOTE] I don't think you could overreact more if you put this in all caps with a hundred exclamation marks.

[QUOTE=Lijitsu;47596661]I don't think you could overreact more if you put this in all caps with a hundred exclamation marks.[/QUOTE] My capslock is broken, sorry :(

I don't see a problem with paid mods. It's the same arguments people have for free open source software and paid software. Paying for mods is going to give an incentive to modders(and Bethesda) to adopt standards to improve the stability of the game. We should also see the quality and sofistication of the mods increase. Don't get me wrong modders deserve more than 25%.