Skyrim paid mods - what's your stance?

[Warpmind]

Thing is, nobody was getting 75%.
The 25% to the modder, fine, that number is correct - but nobody was getting the remaining 75% alone; it was split between 40% to Bethesda and 30% to Valve, with the remaining 5% going either to Valve or to be split among any favored Service Providers, as chosen by the mod uploader.

Yes, if Valve had taken 75% of the sale price, that WOULD be outrageous - but that was not the case, and I'd like to see an end to the arguments founded on that 75% figure.

 

[Lunarea]

You guys do realize that the cut the dev takes generally isn't all profit, right? A good chunk of that is invested into support, licensing, hosting, taxes and other behind-the-scenes fees that someone has to pay for. I'm not arguing that 25% to modder is too high or too low, but that it doesn't mean much without knowing what the other 75% is really going toward.

Do you think, for example, it would it be okay for Manga Studio to charge people for their work that they created using their software?

This is a bad argument because Manga Studio or whatever isn't a program that has content.

What about people on DeviantArt who create fanart for money (commissions)? Should they pay the original content holder for creating fanart and selling it?

A whole different discussion, but look up some of the threads on copyright around the forums. In some cases, yes, they might be forced to pay the original copyright owner.

If not, can you explain to me why you think they (Bethesda etc) deserve money for other people's efforts?

Because they are providing you a market with millions of potential customers. Sure, you can go and try to sell your mod by yourself and keep 100% of the profits, but the chance that you will get the kind of reach you get through Steam are pretty minimal.

This is how distribution portals work -- they're a big marketplace, and even in the real world with physical products, you are still expected to pay for your space (including rent, mortgage, taxes and business license fees).

 

[bgillisp]

I wonder if they picked the 75% because that is pretty normal when it comes to book distribution and printing, so they thought since it works for books, why not try it here? And yes, every time  you buy something on Amazon, they take a huge amount for themselves.

 

[Aleks]

You guys do realize that the cut the dev takes generally isn't all profit, right? A good chunk of that is invested into support, licensing, hosting, taxes and other behind-the-scenes fees that someone has to pay for. I'm not arguing that 25% to modder is too high or too low, but that it doesn't mean much without knowing what the other 75% is really going toward.

I read on another forum the 75% was said to be handed out to Bethesda and Valve to pay for servers or hosting of some sort.

This is a bad argument because Manga Studio or whatever isn't a program that has content.

Excuse me, I am having difficulty with figuring out what you mean. TDo you mean that Bethesda should get money for the mods because the mods add content to their game or because they created the content being modified? I don't see how MS being used as a tool of creation for profit is any less different than Skyrim being used as a tool of creation for profit. It doesn't matter if one is a program and the other is a game, in the example they both serve the same purpose.

A whole different discussion, but look up some of the threads on copyright around the forums. In some cases, yes, they might be forced to pay the original copyright owner.

I know that they might be forced to do it, I was wondering if he thought it was okay/what he thought about it all.

Because they are providing you a market with millions of potential customers. Sure, you can go and try to sell your mod by yourself and keep 100% of the profits, but the chance that you will get the kind of reach you get through Steam are pretty minimal.

This is how distribution portals work -- they're a big marketplace, and even in the real world with physical products, you are still expected to pay for your space (including rent, mortgage, taxes and business license fees).

Okay, that certainly makes sense when the mods are on Steam, but before this paid mods feature, how many on Steam attempted profit? I could see why Bethesda/Valve would "charge" at that point though.

 

[Lunarea]

Excuse me, I am having difficulty with figuring out what you mean. TDo you mean that Bethesda should get money for the mods because the mods add content to their game or because they created the content being modified? I don't see how MS being used as a tool of creation for profit is any less different than Skyrim being used as a tool of creation for profit. It doesn't matter if one is a program and the other is a game, in the example they both serve the same purpose.

The big difference is... mods modify existing content. Even if they're introducing something entirely 100% original and new, they're still introducing it into an environment that doesn't belong to the modder. If something doesn't belong to you, you can't legally charge for it. The only exception is if you have permission from the original owner -- and that's what this paid mod model would have introduced.

Since there's no content in MS Word, anything you create is yours. So, Microsoft can't charge you for it.

Okay, that certainly makes sense when the mods are on Steam, but before this paid mods feature, how many on Steam attempted profit? I could see why Bethesda/Valve would "charge" at that point though.

Aren't the workshop rules that things have to be free? In which case, it would be none on Steam that didn't have their mod taken down.

Honestly, it wasn't a terrible decision to give people a new mode of income -- from a business perspective, mutually beneficial relationships like that are common and very good for business. Obviously, they went about it in a wrong way, but the idea itself is not something they ought to be hated for.