Steam - About Those Paid Mods

Turjan said:

Heh, yes, indeed. I was pretty sure this would show up again exactly then.

Getting money for doing nothing (apart from putting a structure in place, but that's a one time thing) is the best business strategy that exists. Too hard to pass up.

Click to expand...

There's a team of 100 people involved, and if you think creating all those assets and the tools available is a trivial effort - then you probably need to consider why mods exist - and why modders don't just create their own games instead.

Creating the entire game and its toolset is a one-time thing. Yet, they keep selling it years later. Is that unfair too?

The question, I think, is not whether it's fair to get a return for providing assets and tools - as only an entitled brat would disagree.

I think the question should be how MUCH is fair.

Just because people are used to getting things for free does not make it fair to the people who do all the work.

DArtagnan said:

There's a team of 100 people involved, and if you think creating all those assets and the tools available is a trivial effort - then you probably need to consider why mods exist - and why modders don't just create their own games instead.

Click to expand...

You completely missed the mark here. I'm talking business, not your sensibilities of fairness. Paid mods is an ideal business. It's scalable and doesn't need you working on it. Not even DLCs are that good of a business strategy, because they still need you to do some work, even if it's little, and DLCs are not scalable. You cannot just go on a vacation and watch your bank account grow that way.

DArtagnan said:

Creating the entire game and its toolset is a one-time thing. Yet, they keep selling it years later. Is that unfair too?

Click to expand...

As I said, you missed the mark here. Wrong question. Making a product and selling it is not scalable, so an inferior business strategy. The beauty is to make other people work for you without a need for your input.

You completely missed the mark here. I'm talking business, not your sensibilities of fairness. Paid mods is an ideal business. It's scalable and doesn't need you working on it. Not even DLCs are that good of a business strategy, because they still need you to do some work, even if it's little, and DLCs are not scalable.

Click to expand...

Sure, if we ignore that they have to support the product and the editor, as well as ensure that the mods they charge for are working.

They can hardly charge for something that breaks the game - or at least that would be a very risky way of doing business.

Also, modders still have to do a lot of work - so I'm not sure it's the ideal business strategy for them.

I'm not sure why it's important when the work is done though. Whether Bethesda did the work before or after - it's still work.

So, it's a great business strategy. So what? What's your point?

As I said, you missed the mark here. Wrong question. Making a product and selling it is not scalable, so an inferior business strategy. The beauty is to make other people work for you without a need for your input.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that's completely irrelevant. There's no inherent conflict between a great business strategy and a fair price for the work involved.

But I guess the fact that it's been free of charge until now is your best argument.

No, let me guess - you really have no argument or point. You just wanted to say it's a great business strategy - and you have no opinion about it beyond that, right?

Right

DArtagnan said:

No, let me guess …

Click to expand...

That's a very long paragraph to simply say "I didn't understand a thing."

They don't have to do anything about the mods, and they don't need to do quality insurance or control. All production, risk and quality insurance is the task of the modder. If people complain, (s)he is the target.

Turjan said:

That's a very long paragraph to simply say "I didn't understand a thing."

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that doesn't qualify as a convincing argument.

They don't have to do anything about the mods, and they don't need to do quality insurance or control. All production, risk and quality insurance is the task of the modder. If people complain, he is the target.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, because charging for a mod does not obligate you to provide support in any way whatsoever.

I'm sure that will go down really well with the people contacting their support hotline and get: "too bad, we have your money - now contact the modder, because we don't support our game when you use mods you paid us for."

Even if that was a "safe" strategy - they would take a gigantic hit in terms of PR - because mods DO and WILL break games. The average consumer won't give a shit who's responsible - they just know who they paid.

Even so, you've yet to explain why the work they did to realise the assets and tools is, somehow, irrelevant?

So, by that logic, you could spend a billion dollars and a million man-hours creating assets and an editor - and that's inherently a superior business model because you can potentially sell some mods afterwards?

You know what an assumption about a non-existing model based on no actual knowledge is? That's a bad argument made by you.

DArtagnan said:

Oh, yes, because charging for a mod does not obligate you to provide support in any way whatsoever.

I'm sure that will go down really well with the people calling their support hotline and get: "too bad, we have your money - now contact the modder, because we don't support our game when you use mods."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure in which alternate universe you live, but this is exactly the stance every company whatsoever had towards the use of mods, and as the money they get is just a license fee, that's exactly what they can do. If a mod doesn't work, contact the modder. If you want your money back, contact the modder (or better, they use an automated system). The use of mods naturally prevents any right to get support from the company. The business contract is between you and the modder, so they are out.

Turjan said:

I'm not sure in which alternate universe you live, but this is exactly the stance every company whatsoever had towards the use of mods, and as the money they get is just a license fee, that's exactly what they can do. If a mod doesn't work, contact the modder. If you want your money back, contact the modder (or better, they use an automated system). The use of mods naturally prevents any right to get support from the company.

Click to expand...

Except in this, the real universe, companies don't usually charge their consumers for mods. That's a bit of a key difference, don't you think?

Unless you think Bethesda is just going to sit idly by as Steam and the modding community starts charging for work made for their game with their tools.

That would be pretty cool of them.

DArtagnan said:

Except in this, the real universe, companies don't usually charge their consumers for mods. That's a bit of a key difference, don't you think?

Click to expand...

It's just the transfer of a successful business strategy from other areas, so that's not exactly new. You make a software solution to get two business partners together and charge a fee for the service. That's what's happening here. The business partners are the modder and the player, and you charge the intermediation fee (Valve) and a license fee (Bethesda for example). As you are not a partner in the actual business transaction, you don't have any obligations.

Turjan said:

It's just the transfer of a successful business strategy from other areas, so that's not exactly new. You make a software solution to get two business partners together and charge a fee for the service. That's what's happening here. The business partners are the modder and the player, and you charge the intermediation fee (Valve) and a license fee (Bethesda for example). As you are not a partner in the actual business transaction, you don't have any obligations.

Click to expand...

Again, that position won't be a smart business strategy.

The average consumer will NOT care about obligations when their game breaks. It will piss them off.

There's HUGE difference between a free mod and a paid mod. People care a lot more about their money than their time, unfortunately.

There's a reason people rejected the first "attempt" at this opportunistic business move.

They charged 75% of whatever mod, which is just ludicrously greedy.

If you think people would just buy mods willy nilly and not care when their game broke - we're going to have to disagree.

No matter the legal obligation, Bethesda would be committing PR suicide by outright rejecting consumers who contacted their support department while charging for mods.

Again, my point is that it's not "free" for them - and there's a lot of work involved before - and an obligation AFTER.

But why don't we just wait and see what they come up with before we condemn them?

They tried 75% and that was obviously a joke. Let's see what their "official" position on mod support will be for paid mods and the consumer reaction - and then we can talk about the efficiency of the business model with real information, instead of pretending we know the details.

The only way to know how great the business model is - is if we take the combined cost involved with making the assets and tools - and the combined future income generated by mods. We can't ever establish those numbers.

Could it be a great strategy in theory? Very likely - but there's no way to be certain. Also, even if it IS a great strategy - that says exactly nothing about whether paying for mods is fair or not.

Is it a BETTER model than not charging for mods at all? Most likely - but that doesn't translate into the best or the ideal business model.

My take on this is to let the idea of paid mods live and die based on the free market. I do think that Steam needs to ensure some level of support and refunds for mods that break or do not live up to the way they are advertised.

I have no problem with Steam and developers taking a cut of the mod price either. People creating mods are using the platform others have spent time and money creating deserve a cut. I guess it's ok for gamers to waste time on internet forums discussing whether or not this is ok and if so, how much of a cut should each party get. But frankly, that's none of our business and the people who have an actual 'horse in the race' are capable of negotiating those details.

While some modders will try to charge money for craptastic offerings, I think the market will quickly put them in their proper place. Modders that fix bugs, make better PC UIs, make things prettier, and add compelling content… I'd be happy to pay them a reasonable amount for their effort. I'd never have played Skyrim at all if it weren't for SkyUI and I'd happily pay for a mod that has that big of an impact on me.

refunds for mods that break or do not live up to the way they are advertised.

Click to expand...

No reason it is dealt differently from the rest, 2 hours and 14 days.
Considering that mods are somehow similar in their developpment to crowdfunded products, with many updating versions down the way,well...

For the rest, developpers and paid modders are in partnership.
For some reasons, players buy products they know they wont like and demand devs to reverse the design to fit their tastes.
Modding is the release outlet to handle that situation.

In these circumstances, both paid modders and devs are given the incentive to release products that call for modding, modders get money and devs get an extra share.

For modders, the urge will be to spot the features that are expected to disgust players and provide their mod to to eliminate the features.

Actually, modders providing expansive mods might not get that much of the monetization.

I'm not opposed to paid mods, as long as the money distribution is set so that the modder gets at least 50% of the cut.

Doubt I'd ever buy a mod and if I find one that is great I'll just donate some money to the creator directly.

If paid modding becomes a reality I think there will be a need for a modders union to set basic terms and conditions and to even up the negotiating power. It may save them from being exploited long term and us as gamers.

I don't really have a problem with paid mods that add content but for a Mod like SkyUI that should have been released by the game maker I draw the line. That shows a half assed effort on the half of Bethesda porting the game over to the PC. So in the future not only will half baked games be released by Bethesda they will be able to profit from some one else trying to fix their mess.

Don't games sell more because of the mods released for them? ie. Arma 2 sold many thousands of copies because of the dayz mod. It massively extends the life cycle of any game, and as long as the game is selling well the base price remains high and the deep discount sales don't happen. So having your game modded is its own reward because the more players playing a game the more interest it draws so others will try it out. A opposed to a game that sells well for 3-6 weeks then drops out of sight because no one is playing it.

It's not even as much a $ issue( if within reason), as much a pain in the ass this can turn out to be...and they could easily mess up your game anyway, without dealing with this. Especially with those that deal with scripting, AI, etc...you really need to run them first on your own, and this could simply end up with people deciding it's not worth all the trouble.
The only (somewhat) viable solution I see is releasing mod "packs"...Immersion, npc, quest, etc.. of confirmed quality via number of endorsements, light on performance and tested thoroughly, so people would have at least some kind of guarantee of quality.
But individually? It would get out of control fast and make Internet a lot more "interesting" place.

six said:

Doubt I'd ever buy a mod

Click to expand...

Who knows? The future market is going to be different from the current market.
The future market will incitate to use mods.

In the current market, modding serves the purpose of satisfying an unexpected demand: players who buy products they know to include disliked features.
Modding allows to remove the features.
In the current market, the need for mods is untangible, games at release usually do not call for mods as mods are pressed by a matter of tastes.

These days, though, the PC scene is less and less about gaming, more and more about money. PC players want to make money off playing video products, be it by modding, streaming, playing monetized competition etc

Modding currently does not serve this purpose. Contrary to one claim made above, devs must release control over their products to make room for the modding scene expression in a compulsory way.

In the future, games will be released to call for mods. One possibility is to switch from modding as a matter of tastes to modding as a matter of utility.

The PC scene have been cheered up for crowdfunding and crowdfunding is about releasing faulty products on purpose.
Others devs are going to follow suit: this will make room to modders to sell their mods in a compulsory way.

One example: Cities Skyline.
It is standard to distinguish between similar things by using different colours.
Lines in a chart are displayed in different colours. It is a matter of utility.
Video games including charts integrate the standard.

On release, though, CS did not include the standard: transportation lines, when created, all displayed the same colour and were hard to distinguish one from another. This could be corrected manually (a hassle)
Compared to the record of the dev company (Kollosal order), the product was released faulty as their previous products included the feature of automatic attribution of a different colour.

The solution to this miss in utility? The modding scene. Quickly, a mod to attribute automatically colours was released.

This kind of modding is not tasteful modding, it is useful modding.
Not buying a taste based mod? Maybe.
Not buying a utility based mode? Maybe not.

This kind of modding serves the purpose of satisfying PC players who want to sit at their desk and make money off playing video products.

Both sides profit.

Devs can sell their products to a higher price (this kind of utility mods are going to be cheap, it might take ten or so to meet the standard in utility formely provided)

PC players get what they desire: room to make money off video products.

Today, products do not call for mods.
In the future, products will call for mods.

By the way, one measure of the devs' success to provide what the PC scene desire is the devs' capacity to make the use of mods compulsory.

In the future, products that could be used without mods will be bad products.
Products that could not will be good products.

In these conditions, who knows what he is going to buy?

I dislike the entire idea of paid mods, but I think the only sensible way for these paid mods to work is to have some kind of a curator process where each mod that is meant to be a paid mod is thoroughly and properly tested.

And by testing I mean that a mod candiate satisfies certain quality requirements such as:

-Modder is not using someone's else work without the author's permission
-It is not a pure cash crab, like just retexturing some sword / armor etc. Otherwise we're going to see a huge drop in released mod quality.
-Pricing has to make sense. If a mod with huge ammount of content costs 5-10 euros. They can't allow people to sell bunch of armor mods with same price.
-The mod doesn't break up people's games and that it actually works with other popular mods most people are using.
-There has to be some kind of refund policy to ensure that people are not tricked to buy stuff they don't want. I cannot tell how many times some mod's description has not matched to reality.

Then again even released games have problems with QA process, so i'm not holding my breath to see a proper QA for paid mods.

There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy about this, but I think the most compelling is this: we've never seen an example of a distributed digital marketplace that succeeds at treating creators and consumers with respect, and where the intermediary (the platform provider) doesn't extract an undue amount of value.

What would be required to achieve that? For one thing, consumers would need to make purchasing decisions in a much more information-rich environment - and even Steam fans like me have to acknowledge that Steam is absolutely awful about this.

Based on prior analogs, the likely outcomes here will include a pricing race to the bottom that squashes the pricing power of good mods, combined with an unmanageable, practically unvettable plethora of total crap at the $0.99 mark. None of that's good for anyone, except the middlemen.

Dez said:

-There has to be some kind of refund policy to ensure that people are not tricked to buy stuff they don't want. I cannot tell how many times some mod's description has not matched to reality.

Click to expand...

This is the primary (potential) saving grace in Steam's model for paid mods, but I think it's technically infeasible. Sure, they can maybe track how much time you played the game with the mod enabled…but they can't track how much time you've actually used the mod, since many mods introduce items/quests/etc. that are only available to a player after preconditions (level, game area, etc.). And on the flip side, a $0.99 quest mod might offer only 30 mins of gameplay, which wouldn't be unreasonable for $0.99 but would be waaaay under Steam's threshold for refunds. It's tough to see a way for Steam to offer mod refunds without screwing either buyers or creators.