Steam has removed paid mods from Skyrim

Unless the PC gamers here have been living under a rock for the past week you are probably aware that Valve tried to institute paid mods for Skyrim. This managed to piss off almost everyone.

Well, it seems Valve and Bethesda have now decided to stop the program.

For my part I am glad to see this. While I am happy to see mod makers make money this is not the way. I find Valve and Bethesda’s pious protestations that all they really wanted to do was let mod makers share in the wealth to be mostly bullshit. When they take 75% of the mod maker’s profit it is hard to see how their concern was for the welfare of mod makers. If they really wanted to let mod makers make money they’d institute a way to donate to them and maybe take 10% for processing fees.

Nor do I think this would attract better and more professional mod makers. I think it would attract a swarm of crap most likely.

There were a slew of other problems as well (e.g. people stealing other people’s mods and putting them up for sale).

Good riddance.

I’m surprised that Valve pulled the plug so quickly. Has it even been a week since the announcement? Giving modders some money was a good idea at heart, but it was poorly implemented, in an established milieu that heretofore had no monetary concerns. The protest mods were amusing: They ranged in scope from simple protest signs on your Skyrim home to a full scale mission to “Kill Lord Gaben”.

I thought the general idea was pretty good. It’d encourage modding, encourage developers to provide support and tools for modders, provide developers an extra source of revenue with PC games (and thus encourage the development of same) and make Valve some scratch.

The 75% cut does seem a little unfair, but I actually think that’s an issue that would solve itself. If developers ask for too big a cut, the scheme won’t be worth Moders time and they’ll just end up continuing to give their work away for free/donations, and the developers will get nothing. So it’ll be in developers interest to find what a fair price looks like.

They just need to develop the idea a little more before dropping it. I don’t think it would be that hard to come up with some sort of community rating system to prevent fraud, but they obviously need to do that first, and than phase in the payment scheme.

Giving developers/publishers a cut is a good idea; if they can make money off the modders, they’ll make it easier to mod. Maybe if Rockstar had been able to directly profit from GTAV mods, they would have made it possible.

25% to the creator is ridiculous, though. Isn’t the usual cut something closer to the other way around?

Worse than that, it destroyed the infrastructure and goodwill that allows the current good mod makers to do as well as they do. We just have to hope that it recovers from the damage Valve did with this idiocy.

This was a huge hubbub and the first time Valve acted in a completely anti-consumer greedy manner. It was disheartening, since Valve is more or less a shining beacon of virtue in an industry of abuse and scumbags, so to see them attempt to monetize one of the great things that people do for the benefit of their community was hard to stomach.

It’s not a good idea, for so many reasons. First of all, you clearly don’t actually need financial incentives to get people to create these mods - because they’ve been doing it in astounding numbers for 20 years now, all out of goodwill, the desire to make something they like better, and the desire to make things better for others. There’s been no shortage of people willing to do hard work for their own reasons and not for financial gain at all, although not infrequently a good quality modder will be hired by a game developer.

It screws up the incentives. In the case of Bethesda games, so much of the modding is to fix broken, poorly designed, or otherwise negative issues with their games. There are things like the unofficial skyrim patch which is just a mod that eliminates hundreds of bugs. Imagine if they could charge $5 for that. Now Bethesda, rather than spending money to improve their game, is actually making money by releasing a broken game and having the community fix it? Imagine what poor elements they could put into their games that would necessitate mods to fix, meanwhile they get to monetize the fixing.

Games are already monetized out the ass. Endless DLC. Cash shops in games. Do we need another way that you’ll be paying out microtransactions bit by bit instead of just being able to buy a game like you could 10 years ago?

People will end up paying for things that don’t work. Sometimes a game update will break a mod. Sometimes one mod will interfere with another. When you’re getting amateur work for free, you just have to live with this. But imagine if you paid $5 or $10 for a mod, and then the next patch rendered it unusable. And the creator decided he was done and moving onto new projects. Well, you’re fucked. Something you paid for no longer works.

Valve policed the mod workshop badly, and indicated they would continue to do so. People were taking other people’s work and posting it as their own, and making money from it. Both direct theft (posting someone else’s work under false pretenses) and indirectly by incorporating elements of someone else’s work into your own without permission. Valve’s attitude towards this sort of abuse was indifferent.

Mods are often a collaborative process, with many people working on them, and people using the work of others to expand or enhance their own work. When you’re all doing it for the love of the craft, as a hobby, this is quite natural and easy. When you’re competing to make a buck, that co-operation and permission to share and build on each other’s work evaporates. It becomes complicated to even figure out who to pay, when the work was collaborative and built on previous work. So everyone would be out for themselves, and the work would suffer from it. Lots of people are using software, too, to create these mods which is free to use for non-commercial purposes but requires payment for commercial use. That would create a legal mess as well as a disincentive to use other people’s work, even if given freely, if you can’t verify that none of it came from things that were only licensed for non-commercial use.

It just seems incredibly greedy because game makers already greatly benefit from including mod support in their games. The community makes their game better, for free! They should be thanking them, shearing them. It fixes bugs they put in there, it refines elements that the game did poorly, even creates totally new content. There are games that wouldn’t be worth playing except for the mod community. Game developers/publishers already benefit from modding through increased sales by having a better product. Double-dipping by benefiting from the community making your game better (which you should have done yourself) is treating someone creative and generous that benefits you as a resource to be milked. Making double what they did from the transaction just makes it sickening. It’s actually worse than that - the mod had to sell for $400 total before Valve could be bothered to give the creator a cent. So if you made some niche mod for a dollar that 300 people decided to buy, well, you wouldn’t see a cent from it, but Valve and Bethesda would.

Valve already had non-greedy ways to reward content creators. In CSGO, one of their games, they accepted really good community maps into their official rotation. And if you wanted, for a buck, you could become a supporter of that map. It just meant you’d have a little icon on the scoreboard when you played that map. It was just a way of saying that you appreciated the work and wanted to give back a little bit to the person who made it. Why not have a similar system for mods? Give a streamlined way to give modders a completely optional donation. No one could object to that, and it would do some of the things you claim you wanted to do in terms of creating financial rewards for modders.

I could go on, but that’s enough for now. Valve wanted to risk destroying what was one of the greatest things there is in gaming, all in the name of adding even more ways to monetize our games. It would’ve been toxic to the modding scene, expensive for the end user, and possibly corrupting to both the game designers and the modders.

I’m a huge Valve fan and I’ve basically contended that they are the most benevolent market leader I’ve ever seen - they have the PC gaming industry by the balls and never did anything evil with it, even though they could’ve. They’ve always been extremely consumer friendly. This was the very first time I’ve questioned that. It was extremely discouraging. But on the plus side, they listened to the HUGE negative reaction to this and pulled it very quickly. So good on them.

I think it’s a little naive to suggest that allowing modders to make money at their hobby would only mean bad things.

how many awesome mods get abandoned half way through because a modder or group of modders no longer has the time or resources to finish up. How many take half a decade to complete?

Monetizing mods would have meant a lot more people could devote a lot more time to creating mods with more complexity, scope, and polish.

Cutting in the developers would also mean a LOT more interest from them in creating and releasing modding tools.

I truly feel this would have been, after some teething times, a good move for everyone. It would have led to more modding support for more games, and better mods. Free mods would also still be around and still be pretty good, and pay ones would have been that much better.

But Valve went about this the wrong way. This was a very big move, and instead of going trademark Valve-Time with this, and easing the community on it, making sure the underlying issues were being addressed, etc, they just dumped the news on everyone overnight. The cut seems unfair as well - though inline with other modding cuts (DOTA and TF2 for example take a similar cut). If the community response was still fairly negative, maybe having a patron-like system would have also worked. Where the best modders can be donated to on a per month basis (with a more fair cut given to Beth and Valve) for working on game mods.

Oh well, the only thing I hope, beyond hope now, is that Bethesda isn’t soured on the whole mod thing now. If they cut modding from Fallout4, it’s going to suck.

It seems less and less games support modding now a days, this could have been a way to get publishers to care about it more.

The first I knew about this issue was when mods started disappearing from my Skyrim game because the modders pulled them from the workshop. And this was right after I had to unsubscribe and redownload all of them after the last Steam update screwed them up, so I was already in a bad mood and not inclined to be charitable to any side of this matter.

Now that I’ve calmed down a bit (getting the Unofficial Patches back in the workshop helped a lot), I’m leaning more towards the modders. That cut that they were getting was unreasonably low. I would be happy to toss a few coins at some of the better ones (and build shrines to the Unofficial Patchers) but it seems to me that Valve and Bethesda went about this too high-handedly.

Hopefully now that the kerfuffle is over, the mods that were yanked will be put back up. I want my pretty Skyforge steel sword back. The vanilla one is ugly.

Mods aren’t going to bring in enough or a reliable enough income for people to quit their jobs and become full time modders. So then they’d still be working on it in their spare time, which is what they already do as a hobby. The world of modding is already diverse and high quality even without anyone ever making a cent - the financial incentive not only doesn’t have to be there, but it’s corrupting.

And allowing the developer/publisher to get a cut of it is corrupting, too. Imagine if a game company thought “Hmm, our interface is pretty crappy, should we spend time and resources making it better? Or maybe we should spend no more time in effort, know it’s bad, and then when the community fixes it, we get more money from our share of the mod sales!”

Monetizations of mods isn’t necesary and it would very likely degrade and damage the mod community rather than improve it. It also adds to the ridiculous level of monetizing every single aspect of games that we see now.

Good points. And probably right that, aside from a handful of top earners, most wouldn’t make enough money to contribute more time that they already do for free.

How about the patron system I mentioned? More workable?

Anything that’s voluntary and doesn’t split up the community is probably okay with me. I mentioned that they might have a “mod supporter” voluntary donation or even a pay what you want style “tip” to mod makers (for instance, a slider bar starting at $0 and going to whatever you want), and that would be a way to give modders some money for their work.

It does still risk disincentive collaboration and shared work - it would be complicated to figure out who should get the money in a collaborative mod, or a mod that uses elements from other mods, etc. So we might see a decrease in collaborative modding in that case. But it would be far less toxic than when those mods are hidden behind a paywall.

I also strongly oppose the publisher getting a cut of it. In theory, it creates an incentive for them to make their mod tools better, but they already have that incentive to a good extent - moddabiliy sells games. For them to want to take a cut of the mods is double dipping, and more importantly, actually incentivizes them to make worse games so that they can make a profit when people fix them.

Yeah this is exactly what happened with SkyUI apparently. It was going to cost $5. So the devs couldn’t be bothered making a decent PC interface, so modders did it for free. Now they want to charge for any updates to it (the last free version would still be free).
But the thing is, if Bethesda ever releases a patch, likely the old version won’t work anymore. So I’d have to buy a new version. And if I did that, what happens if the game gets patched again? Shell out for the next version of the mod? If not, what’s the incentive for the modder to update it?

I’m sympathetic to modders who want to be compensated for their hard work. Gamers are often extremely unappreciative, negative, and self-entitled and it has to be hard to put so much effort into a hobby project only to be told by a bunch of people they deserve more from you.

However, this wasn’t the right way to go about it. When you buy a game, you have certain technical expectations. If your system meets the requirements and it doesn’t work, you have legitimate right to be upset and demand a refund. For mods, though, whether they work or not or work properly is always an extremely chancy thing. Pretty much the only way to know if a mod is going to work for you is to actually try it. If you have to pay for a mod upfront, what happens when it doesn’t work on your system? Or it gets broken by a patch? Or it conflicts with another mod? Or it has to be pulled because it used resources it didn’t have permission for? How long should a mod maker be expected to support the project?

There are just too many potential problems with mods for an upfront payment model to work well. Community policing is one thing when all of the material is free, but it’s wholly inadequate when things become for profit, and Valve is irresponsibly naive for thinking such a hands off approach is a good idea. Unlike the more vocal complainers, I know that an after the fact donation model is pretty meager, but I think it’s really the only fit for these kinds of projects. In the future, for a game designed around supporting mods in such a way that they won’t conflict or become outdated, a payment model like this could be workable. But I think anyone who’s tried modding Skyrim knows it’s not that game.

And yeah, the 75-25 cut is a bit much. 50-50 would be very reasonable, I think.

It had already cost them $1 million just to get all the complaints, but they’d only made about $10,000 on the mods.