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

[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.[/QUOTE] Which is an activist campaign to try to convince them to take the action you agree with. Not a result of free market forces acting within an open marketplace, which would be what would happen if they had let the market go ahead as planned, and it had failed because people didn't find it worthwhile to spend money on. I didn't even bring up the free market because I think it's a stupid argument, the free market is not the answer to all our problems. But you brought up the free market to suggest that 'the market' collectively decided that mods must be free to try to justify the fact that you are dictating what value other people are allowed to put on their work, and that's absolutely not true at all. No free market forces decided that modding is not a profitable activity, it was plain old activism telling Valve that nobody should be able to pay for mods. You can't say 'oh it wasn't me it was just the market' when it is actually you and you're trying to supersede the market.

I still think that the total hate was mostly bandwagoned. This in no way affected the consumer. There are always a few bad apples but it doesn't spoil the entire marketplace.

[QUOTE=Swilly;47619581]The content creator has to bow to the consumer because without the consumer the content creator has nothing.[/QUOTE] *Unless they have a monopoly in the PC Gaming market.*

[QUOTE=Banned?;47619573]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] Here I thought I could at least get people to admit that 'nobody should be allowed to sell their mods' is a personal opinion being forced on people who might otherwise want to sell their mods, but apparently that's too much to ask for.

[QUOTE=Swilly;47619581]The content creator has to bow to the consumer because without the consumer the content creator has nothing.[/QUOTE] Without the content creator the consumer has nothing too.

[QUOTE=!cake;47619621]Without the content creator the consumer has nothing too.[/QUOTE] Not really how it works. It's not symbiotic, it's one sided.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619600]This in no way affected the consumer.[/QUOTE] Yeaah... this doesn't need to be explained. It affected the consumer in a very major way.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619600]I still think that the total hate was mostly bandwagoned. This in no way affected the consumer. There are always a few bad apples but it doesn't spoil the entire marketplace.[/QUOTE] How does it not affect the consumer if it affects the market ecosystem. That's like saying hats don't affect games. Bullshit. It's shit in my game that I paid for. If I shit on your desk and tell you not to smell it if you don't like, it's still there, and you're still subject to it. Would you have that mentality if people moved into your neighborhood and raised the crime rate of your block? Hey, you have your property they have theirs, if you don't like it, don't look at it. Oh wait, you're still [I]subjected[/I] to it, and they [I]decrease the value[/I] of your property.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47619608]Here I thought I could at least get people to admit that 'nobody should be allowed to sell their mods' is a personal opinion being forced on people who might otherwise want to sell their mods, but apparently that's too much to ask for.[/QUOTE] In either case someone is forced into something they don't want to participate in. However, you don't sympathize with the customer, you sympathize with the people who want to nickle and dime us. So really, it's just a matter of perspective, in either case this situation resolves in, someone is getting fucked.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47619632]Yeaah... this doesn't need to be explained.[/QUOTE] Great argument would read again.

To call us selfish, or entitled, for protecting ourselves when no one else will, can, or cares to, is nothing short of vile.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47619608]Here I thought I could at least get people to admit that 'nobody should be allowed to sell their mods' is a personal opinion being forced on people who might otherwise want to sell their mods, but apparently that's too much to ask for.[/QUOTE] In geel9's words, they absolutely have that right. Is it smart though? On behalf of the content creator or the consumer? ...Debatable.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;47619635]How does it not affect the consumer if it affects the market ecosystem. That's like saying hats don't affect games. Bullshit. It's shit in my game that I paid for. If I shit on your desk and tell you not to smell it if you don't like, it's still there, and you're still subject to it. Would you have that mentality if people moved into your neighborhood and raised the crime rate of your block? Hey, you have your property they have theirs, if you don't like it, don't look at it. Oh wait, you're still [I]subject[/I] to it, and they [I]decrease the value[/I] of your property.[/QUOTE] Valve has charged for things like hats for ages and it's worked. And that's a terrible analogy that has nothing to do with this.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619640]Great argument would read again.[/QUOTE] Saying flat out "It didn't affect the consumer" is a lie and a misrepresentation of facts so there really ISN'T a lot to say about it.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619640]Great argument would read again.[/QUOTE] So paying more money doesn't effect the consumer how? And please don't pull that "well you don't have to pay for it" bullcrap, microtransactions have the exact same one. "You don't HAAAVE too.. but it would make the game a lot better!" Like what do you want me to say, really.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619647]Valve has charged for things like hats for ages and it's worked. And that's a terrible analogy that has nothing to do with this.[/QUOTE] Hats in a multiplayer game that's largely free to play =/= single player game objects that can change anything and everything about the game world. not even comparable.

[QUOTE=!cake;47619621]Without the content creator the consumer has nothing too.[/QUOTE] The another content creator takes their place, or a consumer becomes a content creator. [editline]28th April 2015[/editline] Content creators can be changed and disappear, consumers never leave.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619600]I still think that the total hate was mostly bandwagoned. This in no way affected the consumer. There are always a few bad apples but it doesn't spoil the entire marketplace.[/QUOTE] it certainly divides old games such as skyrim which have tons of interdependencies. say if forgecraft was paywalled for minecraft, there'd be very little in the ways of actual mods that could be built for minecraft without forgecraft. now what ive seen already previously is when a mod author pulls his or her content, mods that depend on that main mod become unusable too, if instead of pulling, that main mod became paywalled instead it has the same effect, and the reverse is true, when some paid mods depend on free mods, then the free mod owner should be entitled to a share since their mod provides the framework and or assets for the other mod. then there's new communities where everything is pay walled, no packs exist, no interdependent mods exist because its been paywalled from the start. i'm not too anxious about this, but i can see the writing on the wall when 3/4ths of the first batch of paid mods were reskins of weapons, it'll be 99% trash and 1% good mods at some point. TF2 is good because valve has to make the final item work with the game and they also usually solicit items with a common theme so items all share similar art-styles. skyrim though was to be wide open, with valve rubber-stamping to prevent outright explicit content, also tf2 is a multiplayer game skyrim is a single player game

Every time I enter a thread like this, it's the same arguments over and over again. Quoting myself here : [QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47593822]The defense is basically : (add-on if I missed one) - You don't have to buy it if you don't want too. - Mod creators are getting what they deserve. - You can just refund it. - Gives incentive for modders to work on mods. The against : (I probably missed a lot more.) - Mod creators are going to abuse the system. - The curation will be non-existent. - Encourages mod developers to make their items cost money when they don't really deserve it - Developers have the potential to get more lazy and rely on modders to create DLC or even content for them - Modders are being screwed by the share, but will still do it anyways because any money is good money. - You aren't paying for development of the mod, most of your money will go to valve and the game owners. - Refunding only goes back to steam wallet, and "early-access mods" cancel most of the refunding out. - Mods are going to be overpriced, screwing the consumer even further. - If a mod breaks with a game update, fuck you! - Over-saturation on the workshop and mod's that include more speculative features will be brought to the top rather then good mods. - More smaller mods then bigger, since they can be sold for ridiculous amounts. - There will be so much to buy in PC gaming that it will be impossible for everybody to buy multiple content from games, therfore subtracting from other purchases, encouraging developers to release games faster and with less content. - Piracy will worsen as a result. - All people will have is greedy intentions. - Will make communities more elitist. - Modders will be encouraged to use scummier tactics in order to get more purchases thanks to the pay cut. - Forcing a community divide between paid and non-paid. Non-paid mods will lessen in quality as a direct result. - You are generally buying less quality content, with potentially no way of getting that money back. Is anybody seriously still defending this? Like all these discussions seem to be the same thing over and over again. This is an anti-consumer move designed to squeeze as much money as possible out of a single game, and the only people getting richer are valve and the company who owns the game. We are literally paying companies for us to do work we used to pay them to do. How does this make any sense???[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47619651]So paying more money doesn't effect the consumer how? And please don't pull that "well you don't have to pay for it" bullcrap, microtransactions have the exact same one. "You don't HAAAVE too.. but it would make the game a lot better!" Like what do you want me to say, really.[/QUOTE] Microtransactions have been in the game for ages now. Mods are created and that takes time. Time that could be used working at a job. So what youre saying is that no work done should ever be able to be compensated, because "you can't use the argument you don't have to buy things"

[QUOTE=geel9;47618525]Modding isn't a sustainable way to earn a living [b]because up until now modders couldn't fucking sell their products.[/b] Even if modders don't make a living off their sales it doesn't mean you are entitled to them not being able to sell it at all. [editline]28th April 2015[/editline] The 25% cut is far too low but that doesn't mean that 0% is better.[/QUOTE] Lets use an analogy, I currently have an item on the Gmod workshop that currently has 186,115 subscribers, if I charged $1 for the item it would generate $186,115. At a 25% cut that would leave me with $46,528 now we can divide that further to account for the 3 years its been on workshop and we are left with $15,509.59 per year. Lopping off my monthly rent of roughly $725 That leaves me with $6,809 Lop off my yearly food expenses and we have $2129 of spending money for the entire year :v:

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619672]Microtransactions have been in the game for ages now. Mods are created and that takes time. Time that could be used working at a job. So what youre saying is that no work done should ever be able to be compensated, because "you can't use the argument you don't have to buy things"[/QUOTE] So not only are microtransactions a fact of our world, it's one you're saying we can't argue with and we have to accept freely? Fuck that

There are communities that are paywalled but the modding community has never been 100% paywalled. There's always free mods and with luck there'd be paid mods, so giant mods that are basically DLC can be charged as such

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619672]Microtransactions have been in the game for ages now. Mods are created and that takes time. Time that could be used working at a job. [B]So what youre saying is that no work done should ever be able to be compensated[/B], because "you can't use the argument you don't have to buy things"[/QUOTE] That's retarded and I never said that, stop twisting my words. Why DOESN'T this effect consumers. Answer the bloody question.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47619678]So not only are microtransactions a fact of our world, it's one you're saying we can't argue with and we have to accept freely? Fuck off man.[/QUOTE] Considering a majority of people have accepted microtransactions, yes. Because it doesn't give a huge benefit to the player and mods even less so because it's singleplayer!

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619679]There are communities that are paywalled but the modding community has never been 100% paywalled. There's always free mods and with luck there'd be paid mods, so giant mods that are basically DLC can be charged as such[/QUOTE] People keep saying there'd be large DLC size mods for reasonable prices but that's not true at all and no one has done the math to explain how that would happen where as I've done the math to show how unlikely it is that it could happen even if we weren't dealing with interdependent mods.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47619681]That's retarded and I never said that, stop twisting my words. Why DOESN'T this effect consumers. Answer the bloody question.[/QUOTE] Because you have the choice to get a mod that someone put effort into by paying for it or going elsewhere. Same reason the games themselves are charged for.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619672]Microtransactions have been in the game for ages now. Mods are created and that takes time. [B]Time that could be used working at a job.[/B] So what youre saying is that no work done should ever be able to be compensated, because "you can't use the argument you don't have to buy things"[/QUOTE] I don't know what kind of modding you're doing that you have to do it at work. Get back to work!

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47619686]People keep saying there'd be large DLC size mods for reasonable prices but that's not true at all and [b]no one has done the math to explain how that would happen where as I've done the math to show how unlikely it is that it could happen even if we weren't dealing with interdependent mods.[/b][/QUOTE] Citation needed. This was only a beginning and an incentive to do it.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;47619682]Considering a majority of people have accepted microtransactions, yes. Because it doesn't give a huge benefit to the player and mods even less so because it's singleplayer![/QUOTE] No, a majority of people have made a loud and vocal stand against them, hence why games like Evolve failed off the bat, to aggressive a microtransaction strategy. It's singleplayer so it has even bigger changes to the gameplay