Victory for paid mod boycotters: Valve removes payment feature from TES: Skyrim area of the Steam Wo - Polidicks

Pay $9.99 to unlock the Engineer in TF2! Pay an additional $2.49 to unlock the level 2 sentry, and another $2.49 to unlock the level 3 sentry!

[QUOTE=geel9;47619272]Steam is already driving revenue by selling games. Guess who can't currently? Mod creators. And these are all examples of things Steam can do (barring the fact that they made retroactive binding agreements). People just would stop using Steam.[/QUOTE] but geel they have the RIGHT it's their RIGHT to do it they have RIGHTS to prevent ENTITLEMENT

[QUOTE=gudman;47619278]$5 per Email and $10 per support ticket, since apparently that costs [b]lots[/b] to maintain and it doesn't even work. Imagine how much it would cost it did anything (probably way less).[/QUOTE] If you have to pay for support, it'll incentivize Valve to make better support

[QUOTE=geel9;47619225]I disagree. I think it's better for the mod community in the long run if people are able to work without having to spend only free time on their content. People always have the ability to work for free and release things without charging. That won't change.all previous purchases or access them without your Steam account -- but that's a different issue.[/QUOTE] If you truly think the modding community hasn't already been damaged by this fiasco, that paid mods somehow exist in a vacuum and don't affect free mods, that paid mods increase the quality and output of mods, then you sir are an ignoramus. When money gets involved in the modding scene it always ends poorly, and it kills the community. It has happened numerous times in the past, and may well have happened here. Minecraft and GTAIV modding, basically dead thank to adfly. Gmod modding, basically dead outside of shitty server scripts and model porting. Skyrim, over 2,000 mods were pulled from the Nexus because people feared their work would be stolen and sold, many of these mods may never return.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;47619289]but geel they have the RIGHT it's their RIGHT to do it they have RIGHTS to prevent ENTITLEMENT[/QUOTE] They do have the right to do it, you asinine twat. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Extended - Flaming too" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=catbarf;47619281]What you're basically doing is saying that because you enjoy volunteering at museums and libraries for free, that nobody else can ever ask to get paid to work at a museum or library. Not just [I]your[/I] museum or library, but prevent any museum or library from ever paying someone to work there because they're [I]ruining[/I] the volunteer spirit. [/quote] What I did, and do, is a volunteer position. Not a paid one. It's the same fucking thing with modders. It's a volunteer position, not a paid. [QUOTE=catbarf;47619281]I don't need to get paid for everything I do or make in life. But [b]you[/b] do not get to decide for me what I am allowed to get paid for. You're advocating an arbitrary restriction on the simple ideal of being able to decide how much your time is worth, for the sake of preserving your hobby. I can't think of any industry where that's held up as legitimate.[/QUOTE] Consumers drive the market, so yes as a consumer I do get decide what you are allowed to get paid for.

[QUOTE=geel9;47619272] And these are all examples of things Steam can do (barring the fact that they made retroactive binding agreements). People just would stop using Steam.[/QUOTE] People almost ate this "paid modding" (aka "pay devs and steam for doing fuck all and give spare change to an actual modder") shit they pulled. ALMOST. People will literally eat any shit Valve pushes out, or so they believe. I bet their motto is "try everything once in your life".

[QUOTE=geel9;47619293]They do have the right to do it, you asinine twat.[/QUOTE] I think everyone knows what Valve have the rights to do, we're arguing that the mod payment system they implemented was stupid as shit.

Well, I guess that's the end of that for now. :v:

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;47619292]Skyrim, over 2,000 mods were pulled from the Nexus because people feared their work would be stolen and sold, many of these mods may never return.[/QUOTE] I've seen this number changed so much, from 60 to 6,000 and now 2,000.

[QUOTE=geel9;47619293]They do have the right to do it, you asinine twat. [/QUOTE] Wow WOW! Easy there

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47619338]I've seen this number changed so much, from 60 to 6,000 and now 2,000.[/QUOTE] I guess the thieves couldn't make up their mind.

I'll wait with celebrating until it's 100% gone

I don't doubt that there were mods taken down in fear, though I doubt it was as high as 6,000.

[QUOTE=bdd458;47619302]What I did, and do, is a volunteer position. Not a paid one. It's the same fucking thing with modders. It's a volunteer position, not a paid.[/QUOTE] Only if modding, by definition, is unpaid. Which is exactly what we're discussing here, so 'it's gotta be unpaid because it's currently unpaid' is tautological. Your position at the museum is a volunteer position because it's unpaid, but could just as easily be done by a non-volunteer, paid worker. You're arguing that you have the right to force all museums and libraries everywhere to only use volunteers, that they can't be even [I]allowed[/I] to hire people in a paid capacity, because it will hurt the spirit of volunteering and you don't like it. You are [I]trying to dictate what work people can pay for[/I]. [QUOTE=bdd458;47619302]Consumers drive the market, so yes as a consumer I do get decide what you are allowed to get paid for.[/QUOTE] Bullshit. You get to decide what you personally buy. You don't get to swoop in and tell someone else they have to give away their work for free. Give me an example of an industry where that's the standard, where nobody is allowed to charge for their work because it'll hurt some hobbyists.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47619376]Only if modding, by definition, is unpaid. Which is exactly what we're discussing here, so 'it's gotta be unpaid because it's currently unpaid' is tautological. Your position at the museum is a volunteer position because it's unpaid, but could just as easily be done by a non-volunteer, paid worker. You're arguing that you have the right to force all museums and libraries everywhere to only use volunteers, that they can't be even [I]allowed[/I] to hire people in a paid capacity, because it will hurt the spirit of volunteering and you don't like it. You are [I]trying to dictate what work people can pay for[/I]. Bullshit. You get to decide what you personally buy. You don't get to swoop in and tell someone else they have to give away their work for free. Give me an example of an industry where that's the standard, where nobody is allowed to charge for their work because it'll hurt [B]some hobbyists.[/B][/QUOTE] "some hobbyists" being the massive majority of the modding community.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47619338]I've seen this number changed so much, from 60 to 6,000 and now 2,000.[/QUOTE] 2,000 was the number I heard on the Super Best Friendcast, I had also seen that number posted in the other thread. I did note quite a few mods I once used were gone last time I checked. 6,000 is probably a stretch, even I thought 2,00 sounded high and assumed it was modder who had a lot of mods on the Nexus pulling all their stuff, many modders have over 20 mods so that number didn't seem too far fetched. Either way, the fact that a noticeable number of mods were removed does show that Valve's system has damaged the community.

Catbarf, do you not understand the role of the consumer in the free market or no? Because the consumer does decide what is worthwhile to spend money on, and in this case the consumer decided enough is enough.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;47619292]If you truly think the modding community hasn't already been damaged by this fiasco, that paid mods somehow exist in a vacuum and don't affect free mods, that paid mods increase the quality and output of mods, then you sir are an ignoramus. When money gets involved in the modding scene it always ends poorly, and it kills the community. It has happened numerous times in the past, and may well have happened here. Minecraft and GTAIV modding, basically dead thank to adfly. Gmod modding, basically dead outside of shitty server scripts and model porting. Skyrim, over 2,000 mods were pulled from the Nexus because people feared their work would be stolen and sold, many of these mods may never return.[/QUOTE] Gmod modding is not dead... Source: I create mods for it

[QUOTE=catbarf;47619376] Bullshit. You get to decide what you personally buy. You don't get to swoop in and tell someone else they have to give away their work for free. Give me an example of an industry where that's the standard, where nobody is allowed to charge for their work because it'll hurt some hobbyists.[/QUOTE] Pretty much every mod maker has said that they dislike the idea of paid mods, and the ones who have said they understand others who put their mods behind a paywall still said they disagreed with the decision. If someone wants to make money on their work, fine. They don't have to make that work a mod, they don't have to try to sell it as a mod. The majority of people have said they don't want paid mods, so paid mods were removed. Consumers are not vending machines for cash, if they say no loud enough you had better fucking listen.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47619281]Firstly, if this were the inevitable outcome, Apple and Google would be releasing broken iOS and Android software and just relying on the community to fix it. That isn't the case by a long shot. Most people don't use mods- I think Bethesda's latest stats said fewer than 10% of players [I]ever[/I] downloaded any Skyrim mods- and are only ever going to see the vanilla game. If they're deliberately releasing broken software, they're already screwed. Second, [I]why on earth[/I] would you be dumb enough to buy a $60 game if you know you'll need to pump more money into just to get playable? If Bethesda wants to lean on their modders to make the game playable, why would you support that business model? At the very least, why not wait and see if there's a free unofficial patch? I'm sure that with the 'community spirit' people keep bringing up, there's a substantial number of people who would do that sort of work for free. And when it really comes down to it- if a team of five or ten people gets together and spends months fixing every last problem with a game and turning it into a slick, polished, AAA production rather than a buggy mess, I don't mind paying a few dollars for it. Your mileage may vary. I understand that not everybody has disposable income, and an effective increase in the price of games sucks. But as a consumer I don't think I have any right to argue that nobody can charge for that caliber of work solely because I'm used to getting it for free. What you're basically doing is saying that because you enjoy volunteering at museums and libraries for free, that nobody else can ever ask to get paid to work at a museum or library. Not just [I]your[/I] museum or library, but prevent any museum or library from ever paying someone to work there because they're [I]ruining[/I] the volunteer spirit. I don't need to get paid for everything I do or make in life. But [b]you[/b] do not get to decide for me what I am allowed to get paid for. You're advocating an arbitrary restriction on the simple ideal of being able to decide how much your time is worth, for the sake of preserving your hobby. I can't think of any industry where that's held up as legitimate.[/QUOTE] Games are already 10$ more expensive here, and you're saying, not only should I not complain, but I should just stop playing those games because that's just going to be the cost of the game in the future? Well, I guess you really don't care about what the consumer thinks. But the market does, and the market doesn't want that shit it would seem.

[QUOTE=bdd458;47619417]Catbarf, do you not understand the role of the consumer in the free market or no? Because the consumer does decide what is worthwhile to spend money on, and in this case the consumer decided enough is enough.[/QUOTE] In a true free market, a product is only worth what a customer is willing to pay.

[QUOTE=Exho;47619422]Gmod modding is not dead... Source: I create mods for it[/QUOTE] Compared to 2006-2008 it's pretty dead. I don't mean no one makes mods for it, just that the number of people actively developing mods has shrunk to very small numbers. People still make mods for Minecraft and GTAIV too, but it would be a lie to say they're anywhere near as active as they once were. Saying it's dead was obviously hyperbolic.

For sure, the pre-2009 GMod development community produced some of the most creative game modifications I'd ever seen out of a mod community. Close to, but not quite on par with the early Elder Scrolls modding scene, which produced beyond DLC-quality work before the swarm of nude mods showered in. It's a shame only a fraction of them went on to become professional developers.

[QUOTE=bdd458;47619417]Because the consumer does decide what is worthwhile to spend money on[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Protocol7;47619447]In a true free market, a product is only worth what a customer is willing to pay.[/QUOTE] Yes that is [I]absolutely what I have been saying this whole time[/I]. But what you're advocating is [I]not[/I] a free market, you want to put arbitrary and artificial restrictions on a market so that the market won't endanger your pet hobby. 'This is not worthwhile, I'm not gonna spend my money on it' is the consumer deciding what is worthwhile to spend money on. 'This is not worthwhile, let's get a vocal campaign going to ban it and force everyone to adopt the model that we like' is not a consumer decision, it's an activist campaign at best. If 'the market' were against it, what we'd have would be a paid mod market that would wither and die because nobody would support it. If your concern is that it would be too profitable and wouldn't go quietly into the night, then any argument you're making that the market wouldn't support it is bullshit. If you have to [I]remove[/I] the market, it's not the market speaking. This really isn't that complicated.

This was consumers banding together as a block and saying "No, we are not going to spend our money on that." How can you ignore that? This is the consumer deciding collectively what is worthwhile. You're actively saying the ability for consumers to band together to make and stand and then going "no that is not the free market!!!". THAT IS THE FREE MARKET. WE ARE CONSUMERS AND WE ARE SAYING "NO, WE WILL NOT PAY FOR THIS". It's very similar to a union, in that it's not effective unless consumers band together and work as a group.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47619491]Yes that is [I]absolutely what I have been saying this whole time[/I]. But what you're advocating is [I]not[/I] a free market, you want to put arbitrary and artificial restrictions on a market so that the market won't endanger your pet hobby. 'This is not worthwhile, I'm not gonna spend my money on it' is the consumer deciding what is worthwhile to spend money on. 'This is not worthwhile, let's get a vocal campaign going to ban it and force everyone to adopt the model that we like' is not a consumer decision, it's an activist campaign at best. If 'the market' were against it, what we'd have would be a paid mod market that would wither and die because nobody would support it. If your concern is that it would be too profitable and wouldn't go quietly into the night, then any argument you're making that the market wouldn't support it is bullshit. If you have to [I]remove[/I] the market, it's not the market speaking. This really isn't that complicated.[/QUOTE] Hey, who removed the market? maybe, just maybe, it was the consumers? collectively deciding that mods aren't worthwhile to spend money on? You genuinely don't understand what you're arguing.

They didn't remove the market, they removed the marketplace. The market is the people and the people said no.

Geezus fuck, I cannot believe catbarf is not letting this free market thing go. It's fucking [I]days[/I] guys. Clearly no one is changing the other persons opinion.

[QUOTE=bdd458;47619515]This was consumers banding together as a block and saying "No, we are not going to spend our money on that." How can you ignore that? This is the consumer deciding collectively what is worthwhile. You're actively saying the ability for consumers to band together to make and stand and then going "no that is not the free market!!!". THAT IS THE FREE MARKET. WE ARE CONSUMERS AND WE ARE SAYING "NO, WE WILL NOT PAY FOR THIS". It's very similar to a union, in that it's not effective unless consumers band together and work as a group.[/QUOTE] The content creator has to bow to the consumer because without the consumer the content creator has nothing.