Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the total-reversion dept.

We previously covered Valve offering paid mods in the Steam Workshop. Now, Valve (and Bethesda) have realized that the way they were attempting to implement payment for modders (and themselves) could not stand alongside the current model, at least with the goodwill of the community.

From the article:

We've done this because it's clear we didn't understand exactly what we were doing. We've been shipping many features over the years aimed at allowing community creators to receive a share of the rewards, and in the past, they've been received well. It's obvious now that this case is different.

We understand our own game's communities pretty well, but stepping into an established, years old modding community in Skyrim was probably not the right place to start iterating. We think this made us miss the mark pretty badly, even though we believe there's a useful feature somewhere here.

Hopefully they do get a fully-baked donation system implemented (or some other method that makes sense).

Related Stories

Steam Now Offering Paid Workshop Mods 34 comments

Valve has announced that they will be allowing content creators to charge for workshop mods:

The Steam Workshop has always been a great place for sharing mods, maps, and all kinds of items that you’ve created. Now it's also a great place for selling those creations. With a new, streamlined process for listing and selling your creations, the Steam Workshop now supports buying mods directly from the Workshop, to be immediately usable in game. Discover the best new mods for your game and enable the creators to continue making new items and experiences.

While this seems a great way to incentivize the creation of more and better mods, of course not all gamers are happy about it. [venturebeat.com - Warning: lots of javascript]

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by CoolHand on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:22AM

    by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:22AM (#176346) Journal

    I, for one, think it's great that they listened to feedback from the users. Obviously, the system as released was broken, and they could have kept pushing it. I really think it's a great sign that they listened to users, examined the situation, and came to correct conclusion to retract and restudy it.

    --
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:49AM (#176390)

      Unfortunately the way they worded the response to the community was very crass. When a few million customers respond so negatively about something you do, costing millions in just a couple days (per Gabe Newell's reddit discussion), it would behoove you to not make backhanded comments and thinly veiled lies pushing the blame for the failure on to your customers. This has been especially foolish with GOG Galaxy [gog.com] just around the corner.

      I have an attitude that this was a victory, but the second wave could be on its way. Time to diversify game purchasing habits away from steam.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:44AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:44AM (#176471)

      There is nothing commendable about backing down in the face of an outright customer revolt, not even the most evil and anti-consumer corporation can afford such a faux pass.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:41AM

      by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:41AM (#176494)

      What a load of nonsense.

      They screwed the pooch in a blatantly greedy product launch and are now in PR damage control.

      The only thing he is sorry about is the negative publicity.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:42AM

      by davester666 (155) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:42AM (#176503)

      It seemed pretty douchebaggy for them to take 75% and only give the person who made the mod 25% [sure, they donate some, but that's the kind of deal a wireless carrier offers...]

      • (Score: 2) by romlok on Wednesday April 29 2015, @09:11AM

        by romlok (1241) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @09:11AM (#176516)

        It seemed pretty douchebaggy for them to take 75% and only give the person who made the mod 25%

        To clarify, the "them" taking 75% was a combination of Valve's 30% (which is the usual rate on Steam AFAIK), and Bethesda's decision to take 45% on top of that.

        • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:37PM

          by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:37PM (#176596) Journal

          yeah, I agree those %'s are way too much.. Although I have no problem with them getting a little something, since they are providing platforms for the modders to make and market their mods. However, they both do benefit from the mods adding extra customers to the game, so they should be somewhat happy with that and not get to greedy. 2 sides of the coin, and a fine balance there, and all that... :)

          --
          Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:42PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:42PM (#176598) Journal

      Broken is an understatement. The whole system was a complete boondoggle and was so bad that it blew people's minds that Valve could screw up and screw people so badly. Here is why:

      You make a mod for Game X and want to sell it for $5.
      Out of that $5, you get ... wait for it ... 25%. That's it. A $1.25 is your share.
      The other 75%? Most goes to valve and a portion goes to the maker of the game. Free money.

      So of all your hard work, Valve graciously allows you to have just 25%. While Valve gets the lion's share and the game creator gets a piece because why not!

      Another problem? I make a mod for Game X that adds realistic horse genetailia and sells for $5 (seriously, someone made this for skyrim and was selling it for $99). But in order for my floppy horse weiner to work I need another mod that someone made that enables jiggly things. So I steal that mod and package it up with mine since it is a dependency. Jiggy mod maker is ripped off and then fires off a DMCA against my mod. And this is what happened to a lot of mods. People were ripping off components of mods or entire mods and original authors were using the DMCA to take down those mods. I am sure there were also retaliation DMCA takedowns as well.

      Further problems: Someone else makes a mod that adds huge, jiggly breasts to every female character and also sells for $5. My floppy horse weiner mod changes part of the game that the jiggly breast mod also changes. They are now incompatible and cannot be simultaneously used. The player now wasted $10 on mods that can't be used together. So incompatibility between mods was also another big factor. There is no way a player can be sure mods are compatible. It's a total crapshoot. Maybe the mod doesn't work at all! ZERO testing and quality control. Yet valve still gets to keep a huge portion of the profits. No refunds.

      This pissed off the community and they protested by flooding the market with crap mods, fake mods and simply stole mods to rename them and flood the marketplace even further. Valve temporarily took down the service, removed the fake mods hoping it would blow over. When they resumed a few days later, the flood of crap mods once again filled the market place. They threw in the towel and pulled the plug.

      Supposedly the amount of money spent of the hosting of the fake mod storm combined with the labor of sifting through them was more than the service made. They lost money. And I say they completely deserved it.

      • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:59PM

        by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:59PM (#176606) Journal

        Thanks for that nice write-up.. I was going to post a comment on depencency/incompatibility issues, but haven't had time.. Yours is great!

        --
        Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:14PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:14PM (#176613) Journal

          I was totally unaware until my brother gave me the full spiel the other night. I was just floored. I couldn't believe that Valve would screw their community in such a brazen manner.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:34AM (#176349)

    Relish them. Apologize when you screw up, learn everything you can and move on.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:08AM (#176364)

    Classic foot in the door tactics.

    Valve will be back to pushing paid mods in a few months or year.

  • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:21PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:21PM (#176566)

    I don't really understand the backlash.
    So they made a paid mods section alongside the free mods.
    As a modder, you could have dropped your mod into either section, or both(?)

    I could see the uproar if they were doing away with the free mods, that is not the case.

    I have been mdding Skyrim since day one, and was actually looking forward to this oppurtunity to actually make 'beer money' from some of my efforts.

    • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:24PM

      by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:24PM (#176588)

      The problem wasn't that you could make "beer" money. The way I understand it was that you were making "a beer" money, while Bethesda was making "RIAA" money.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
      • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:37PM

        by rts008 (3001) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:37PM (#176625)

        Thanks for the reply.

        So the 'cut' the modder got was too small, while the bulk went to the game developer and Steam. Hmmmm...

        I guess I am not part of that crowd. The way I see it, it was a way to pick up a few bucks(probably to buy more games with) for what was essentially for me, a labor of love.
        I did not see this as a way to make a living, or even a part-time job, just a fun way to pay for some of my games(or beer).

        I personally would have liked to see this work out.

        If they were charging for all mods, or if all future mods went into the paid section only, or other such scenario, I would understand the outrage...I would be grabbing torches and pitchforks myself.

        It is a single-player game, no online component at all, so it's not like you(player) would be disadvantaged by not using paid mads to play competively. You don't even have to mod the game to play it.
        Most of the mods that exist can be done by anyone quickly with the Creation Kit(free mod tool), there are countless tutorials and youtube vids for making mods yourself, and if you know your way around Photoshop/GIMP and 3dsmax(?)/Blender, then the sky is the limit to the mods you can build.

        I'm glad that they listened to the customers though, that is too rare these days.
        And I will still build mods and play the game, paid or not. A minor disapointment to me, but far from a 'deal breaker'.

        [offtopic]
        BTW, I remember the discussion when you started using that sig. LOL!! I still giggle a little every time I see your posts with that sig. :-)

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:31PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:31PM (#176652)

          I'd be happy with beer money myself, but I do have a major ethical objection to other people enriching themselves from my labor without giving me a fair cut.

          • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @11:18PM

            by rts008 (3001) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @11:18PM (#176864)

            Yeah, 'dyingtolive' explained the root of the outrage, but I have to admit to being caught off gaurd by the shitstorm.
            I quess that's the effect to expect when I'm caught thinking inside my own little box.

            I understand your point of view on this, but mine is different.

            For myself, I'm going to mod and play the game, 'paid mods' or not.

            If you are looking at it from a 'work' perspective, then you are absolutely correct in your comment.

            I'm looking at it from a 'play' perspective, and was only thinking:"Cool, get some cash for something I love doing, and am doing for free now? Yeah, why not-who cares about the 'cut', I may get lucky and get enough for DLC for my game, or, or, even enough to get a game! WOOOT!!!"

            So in other words, just decorations on the iced cake, not even the icing on the cake, from my POV.

            I am glad that Steam listened to the community, and I applaud them for that.(I can be a graceful loser:)

            I expect this to come up again with(or if) Fallout 4, or the next Elder Scrolls game.
            As long as it is optional, and applied only to single-player/offline games, then I have no problem with 'paid mods' in concept. I guess how much enthusiasim depends on terms, and just as importantly, POV.

            It will be interesting, because I think this genie just slipped out the bottle.

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:13AM

              by Immerman (3985) on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:13AM (#176946)

              >For myself, I'm going to mod and play the game, 'paid mods' or not.

              Absolutely. I've been modding for years, and was fairly active in the Total Annihilation heyday, though I've mostly not bothered to release my various mods for other games (mostly the Elder Scrolls series) since then other than by sneakernet. I'll happily release my mods for free, I'm not in it for the money, that would just be a nice little bonus and maybe a bit of motive to get me to put the last bit of polish on some projects to get them fit for distribution rather than having me personally walk my friends past the rough edges. My objection is not to me not making much money under the proposed scheme, but to someone *else* doing so all out of proportion to their contribution. That, to my mind, is at the very heart of the sickness eating away at the American economy, and I consider to be not just unfair, but actively, banally, evil.

              Morally, philosophically, I would much rather give my mod away for free than let someone else reap the lion's share of the profit, and thus encourage their parasitic behavior. But I'm no saint - give me the option to make a little money on the side for no further effort and the temptation will sit there, constantly teasing me with the potential for personal gain if only I am willing to indulge their machinations. And that I don't need that - in fact it might even be enough to drive me away from modding the game at all. Temptation is most easily resisted when absent.

        • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:23PM

          by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:23PM (#176733)

          Well, that's what I've gleaned as the biggest thing between the Reddit shitstorm and the couple friends I spoke to who followed the deal more closely than I did. I'm sure there were other reasons ranging from well-informed and intelligent to "OMG MOAR MONIES!" (the latter of which is generally about the most coherient thing you can hope for in the Steam forums themselves).

          I've heard the multiplayer pay-to-win mod fear thrown out there as well. I'd be a little worried about that one too. Obviously not for Skyrim, but other mod friendly games that are multiplayer. Killing Floor 2 comes to mind, and it's enough of a 'competitive' cooperative game that there'd probably be damage to the community if something like that came out.

          Personally, I'd have no problems paying for a mod, but I for damn sure want to make sure that the money is going to who put forth the effort. At least as much of it as possible. I'm semi-okay with Valve getting their cut, long as it's all seamlessly done through the Steam interface and comes out about as little of a hassle as installing a new game. I'm not cool with Bethesda getting more than a couple percent, max. I wouldn't play Bethesda games without the modding community. If anything, they should be paying the modders. :P

          --
          Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
          • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @10:47PM

            by rts008 (3001) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @10:47PM (#176852)

            I wouldn't play Bethesda games without the modding community. If anything, they should be paying the modders.

            Heh. You have a point. :-)

            I have been playing the Fallout games since 1996, and they have been my favorite series. The one thing I learned the hard way: SAVE OFTEN!!!
            Fallout 1 & 2 were buggy as hell, and a lot of the 'mods' were actually patches to fix glitches and broken quests.

            But they were enough fun that we(the fans) put up with the bad, to get the good.

            So in all fairness, Bethesda is just in keeping with the Fallout Tradition of Buggy Goodness. ;-)
            *Skyrim uses the same game engine that Bethesda used for Fallout 3, so most faults are shared between the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series*

            I guess I'm just not as concerned about the 'cut', as it would not really change anything for me. Well, maybe if my 'paid mods' were popular enough, the money would buy me another game, or DLC for one of my games.

            Just so I am being clear, I am only speaking of the Skyrim game and this recent 'event'.

            In principle, I would only support 'paid mods' for single player games. The only way I would support paid mods for online multi-player games would be if, and only if, the mods conferred no advantage to gameplay. Eye-candy is fine, but no stat changes, for example. I would still lean towards no paid mods except for single player. It has been proven time and time again, that humans can learn to 'game the system', no matter how good you think your rules/security/etc. are.

            My guess is that if/when Fallout 4, or the next Elder Scrolls come out, that Steam will try this again, but announce it before launching the game.