Skyrim - Bethesda Talks Skyrim's Paid Mods Controversy @ Gamespot

lostforever said:

Isn't mod writers licensing tech from Bethesda in the same way Bethesda license tech from Gamebryo or other devs from other engines such as Unreal, cry engine etc? If yes, how much does Bethesda or other devs pay these engine companies?

Having said all that, at the end of the day mod users are using Bethesda tech and Bethesda should have the right demand however much payment they want for their tech. Whether thats fair or not is another question, After all Bethesda is not forcing mod writes to create mods for Skyrim, they can go and write mods for other games….

Click to expand...

No it isn't similar, because Gamebryo have not already sold their product to every Bethesda customer. That is what you are missing. If we all had to buy Unreal Engine and Gamebryo before we could run games that use them, then those companies would be falling all over themseves to get developers such as Beshesda to make games for their platforms... And if they could then sell users extensions off the back of other developers work, they'd be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Roq said:

No it isn't similar, because Gamebryo have not already sold their product to every Bethesda customer. That is what you are missing. If we all had to buy Unreal Engine and Gamebryo before we could run games that use them, then those companies would be falling all over themseves to get developers such as Beshesda to make games for their platforms… And if they could then sell users extensions off the back of other developers work, they'd be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Click to expand...

I don't really understand your point. I think I am missing part of your argument.

Everytime Bethesda sells Skyrim, they have to pay Gamebryo etc. So if you use the construction kit to create a mod and sell it, why shouldn't you pay Bethesda?

Note that Bethesda has never sold you the right to make and sell games with the construction kit.

Roq said:

No it isn't similar, because Gamebryo have not already sold their product to every Bethesda customer. That is what you are missing. If we all had to buy Unreal Engine and Gamebryo before we could run games that use them, then those companies would be falling all over themseves to get developers such as Beshesda to make games for their platforms… And if they could then sell users extensions off the back of other developers work, they'd be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Click to expand...

That analogy doesn't work because you can't play the Unreal Engine or Gamebryo (well, maybe they come with a playable tech demo but that doesn't really count) whereas you can play Skyrim without mods perfectly fine. Game engines are tools and nothing more, but games like Skyrim are both games and tools.

lostforever said:

I don't really understand your point. I think I am missing part of your argument.

Everytime Bethesda sells Skyrim, they have to pay Gamebryo etc. So if you use the construction kit to create a mod and sell it, why shouldn't you pay Bethesda?

Note that Bethesda has never sold you the right to make and sell games with the construction kit.

Click to expand...

Sony make radios. Every time they sell a radio they have to pay Motorola for chips. So on your logic anyone who makes content for radios should pay Sony for the right to make radio content… The fact is that Sony make their money by selling their radios to customers and they welcome people making radio content, because then they sell more radios. That is a very simple and compelling model that is now being understood by other game developers. But, Bethesda want to eat their cake twice over and that is just greedy and short sighted - like trying to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. And they only imagine they can get away with it, because they are running a virtual monopoly.

Ivanwah said:

That analogy doesn't work because you can't play the Unreal Engine or Gamebryo (well, maybe they come with a playable tech demo but that doesn't really count) whereas you can play Skyrim without mods perfectly fine. Game engines are tools and nothing more, but games like Skyrim are both games and tools.

Click to expand...

It's just *because* people don't play them on their own that they need to charge developers for a licence... If people did *buy* them in huge quantities, and other developers only added to their appeal, they would be giving away licences... Lets make it simple - You need to ask yourself whether Beshesda benefit from the mod situation as it is now. If the answer is yes, which it is, then mod developers are adding value that increases the appeal of the underlying product. That is something that you generally pay for *not* get paid for!

Roq said:

Sony make radios. Every time they sell a radio they have to pay Motorola for chips. So on your logic anyone who makes content for radios should pay Sony for the right to make radio content… The fact is that Sony make their money by selling their radios to customers and they welcome people making radio content, because then they sell more radios. That is a very simple and compelling model that is now being understood by other game developers. But, Bethesda want to eat their cake twice over and that is just greedy and short sighted - like trying to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. And they only imagine they can get away with it, because they are running a virtual monopoly.

Click to expand...

Again, bad analogy. Tho content on the radio is independent of the technology. You can broadcast the same content over the internet or ditch the technology altogether and, say, do a live talk show in a theater or in a park. I don't know if radio stations pay Sony or whomever a fee for using their technology to broadcast the content, but that would be similar to Steam's role in this situation.

Now, if you made a radio show and you played some music in it, you have to pay the record company for the use of that music (unless it's public domain, or you have a deal with the company). That is analogous to Bethesda's role here.

Roq said:

It's just *because* people don't play them on their own that they need to charge developers for a licence… If people did *buy* them in huge quantities, and other developers only added to their appeal, they would be giving away licences… Lets make it simple - You need to ask yourself whether Beshesda benefit from the mod situation as it is now. If the answer is yes, which it is, then mod developers are adding value that increases the appeal of the underlying product. That is something that you generally pay for *not* get paid for!

Click to expand...

Yet Bethesda found a genius way to make even more money off of that. I applaud their business genius.

And you don't think that good games made with a particular engine don't serve as an advertisement for that engine? Should Unreal Engine pay all those great games made with it for advertising it?

Ivanwah said:

Yet Bethesda found a genius way to make even more money off of that. I applaud their business genius.

And you don't think that good games made with a particular engine don't serve as an advertisement for that engine? Should Unreal Engine pay all those great games made with it for advertising it?

Click to expand...

They didn't find a great way to make more money, because they along with Valve screwed their pooch by being greedy. They might well have made more money if they had recognized their role in these transactions as middlemen to facilitate mod sales. And they still can if they can do a U turn without losing to much face. Noone resents an *honest* profit.

In the case of Unreal, yes of course they do pay for implicit advertising by licence cost reductions. The tools market is very competitive. It also has to be said that Bethesda are not paying 90% of their profits to Unreal. And besides, unlike Bethesda, Unreal actively support their products, rather than abandon them - Skyrim is essentially unchanged since the original and poor ports to PC.

You're right, they didn't make any money yet. But I think the problem here isn't that Bethesda wants more money (although, something like 30% would be more reasonable than 45%). It's also that Steam is taking 30% of the revenue. Yet I've seen far less people call them greedy. And I know Unreal only takes 5% of the revenue. But with it you only get the engine. What you also get with Skyrim are resources - textures, models, a huge premade world you can add to. There are a lot of mods that use them. Now, you can argue that some mods don't use those but actually add new to the game (texture packs, character models, music, etc.). But unfortunately, there's no "lite" version of Skyrim that would cost less and have restricted access to those resources. I don't even see how that would be possible - you need to have the full game in order to make a mod for it.

Then there's whole intellectual property issue with the game's universe. You can't just make a game set in Tamriel, sell it and expect not to pay a dime to Bethesda. Same with mods - and there are a lot of mods for Skyrim, mainly quest mods, taking place in Tamriel.

Modding brings money by diversifying the offer at a low cost. For some reason, players buy products with features they do not like, then expect changes in the product to be shaped according to their tastes.
Modding provides that at a low cost.

Roq said:

because they along with Valve screwed their pooch by being greedy.

Click to expand...

More precisely, they underestimated the greed of the PC scene. Steam cant change their cut. The remaining part must be split to the favour of Bethesda.

Nobody but the PC modding scene was greedy in this story.
It remains that the PC modding scene's demand for making money by modding is still there. Bethesda, with their products generating strong modding, are in pole position to satisfy that demand.

All this will take a toll on the quality of games, gameplay and even products.

This