Return to “General”

Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#197
Zanteogo wrote: Why would having Josh pick a few mods every month, and having them moved up to "paid" status, help ANYONE?
Surface Reflection wrote:who said anything about picking a few mods every month and "then moving them to paid status" ?

What the frak are you talking about?
I believe he means this:

8. It would serve nicely to get some PR for the game months after release, to remind people of the game. While at the same time, Josh would be free to make any official expansions or additions or whatever and combine those with these mods to get some more PR. And sweet money.
Image
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#198
Surface Reflection,

the conventions of modding have already been set by the abundance of games already with mods available, they're free, and if someone really wants to get some money they have a donation button.

Why do we need to change that? I could understand this kind of discussion happening back when modding first became a thing, but its got to the point where its basically standardized. I don't see any point in messing with that.
0/*\0
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#199
shrimpyhugs wrote:Surface Reflection,

the conventions of modding have already been set by the abundance of games already with mods available, they're free, and if someone really wants to get some money they have a donation button.

Why do we need to change that? I could understand this kind of discussion happening back when modding first became a thing, but its got to the point where its basically standardized. I don't see any point in messing with that.
As a to-be-ltsl modder I think the "mod is free, you can also donate" method is the best course of action, as a creator, I don't want money, I want people to see my creation

~Sly
IVE BEEN OUT OF MY MIND A LONG TIME
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#200
BFett wrote:
Zanteogo wrote: Why would having Josh pick a few mods every month, and having them moved up to "paid" status, help ANYONE?
Surface Reflection wrote:who said anything about picking a few mods every month and "then moving them to paid status" ?

What the frak are you talking about?
I believe he means this:

8. It would serve nicely to get some PR for the game months after release, to remind people of the game. While at the same time, Josh would be free to make any official expansions or additions or whatever and combine those with these mods to get some more PR. And sweet money.
And what does your belief then comes out as? Whats is he believing? How do you know that? telepathically?

ffs...

That two sentences only mean that after release, Josh does his own thing, either does an expansion or whatever, then after that some good mods start appearing. So you get a bit more PR for official expansion or whatever. And then you get another pr boost when a few super mods get made, bundled and sold. Josh doesnt pick any mods. The mods must be submitted to this deal by modders themselves.

It is NOT MANDATORY! ITS JUST A BLOODY OPTION FOR THOSE THAT WANT IT AND CAN DELIVER!

I said five times already, only a few select best of the best mods. that moderators SUBMIT THEMSELVES.
And thats too difficult to understand?
Last edited by Surface Reflection on Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#201
shrimpyhugs wrote:the conventions of modding have already been set by the abundance of games already with mods available, they're free, and if someone really wants to get some money they have a donation button.
Let's look at three scenarios:
1. A person or team creates a game.
2. A person or team creates DLC for a game they previously created.
3. A person or team creates a mod for a game created by someone else.

It's possible, and common to charge money for 1 and 2. But 2 is essentially an official 3 - the difference between DLC and mod is relatively small.

So why not give the option to charge money for 3 as well? It's up to anyone wishing to play the mod whether they decide to buy it, just as it's up to anyone wishing to play a game or DLC whether they decide to buy it. They may have already bought the game, but that's true for the DLC scenario as well. Creating a mod can sometimes be more work than creating DLC. Shouldn't they have the option to charge for their hard-earned work?

Or to put it another way, what if you weren't allowed to charge for games? "If you really want to get some money you have a donation button, what are you complaining about?" Well, there goes my career. :mrgreen:

Free mods are great, just as free games are great. But how many games would we have if you couldn't charge money for them? How many mods would we have if you could charge money for them?
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#202
YOU CANNOT CHARGE ANYTHING OR SELL ANYTHING.

Its not yours to sell.


All you do as a modder is submit your mod to Josh - if you want to. Not any mod, ONLY THE FULL CONVERSIONS; HUGE EXPANSIONS AND BASICALLY WHOLE STANDALONE GAMES.
If it gets through the screening and quality control part it gets bunndled with a few more like it, they are NEVER sold separately and you only get a part of the money.

Simple enough?
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#203
Garry's mod strikes me as a good example. This idea is essentially third party DLC whose quality is assured by the game creator.

People here seem to think there's no precedent for this; on the contrary, there absolutely is. Garry's mod is a quintessential example, as stated before; the DCS flight simulator has the majority of its playable content produced by third party, approved by the main releasor; even expansion packs for games like Mechwarrior were produced at least in part by third parties.

No; what's happening in this thread is that people read the word 'paid' and just lose their minds. It's making me start to question my own fervency earlier in this thread. Phenomenal, the sheer hostility to the idea here is startling.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#204
Surface Reflection wrote:YOU CANNOT CHARGE ANYTHING OR SELL ANYTHING.

Its not yours to sell.


All you do as a modder is submit your mod to Josh - if you want to. Not any mod, ONLY THE FULL CONVERSIONS; HUGE EXPANSIONS AND BASICALLY WHOLE STANDALONE GAMES.
If it gets through the screening and quality control part it gets bunndled with a few more like it, they are NEVER sold separately and you only get a part of the money.

Simple enough?
why should it have to go through Josh? Josh is only responsible for the engine, the modder made the mod, and personally I don't think selling a mod is a good idea, if the person wants to make money on some code, then they would make a game, making a mod is not really something that is solicitable, full conversions and very large mods are different, though personally if I were making a very large mod, it wouldn't be something I would be doing instead of a day job, so I would be fine with only having a donation type payment.

~Sly
IVE BEEN OUT OF MY MIND A LONG TIME
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#205
Slymodi wrote:
Surface Reflection wrote:YOU CANNOT CHARGE ANYTHING OR SELL ANYTHING.

Its not yours to sell.


All you do as a modder is submit your mod to Josh - if you want to. Not any mod, ONLY THE FULL CONVERSIONS; HUGE EXPANSIONS AND BASICALLY WHOLE STANDALONE GAMES.
If it gets through the screening and quality control part it gets bunndled with a few more like it, they are NEVER sold separately and you only get a part of the money.

Simple enough?
why should it have to go through Josh? Josh is only responsible for the engine, the modder made the mod, and personally I don't think selling a mod is a good idea, if the person wants to make money on some code, then they would make a game, making a mod is not really something that is solicitable, full conversions and very large mods are different, though personally if I were making a very large mod, it wouldn't be something I would be doing instead of a day job, so I would be fine with only having a donation type payment.

~Sly
If you don't go through Josh then the site gets flooded with dozens of crappy paid for mods. Josh is the quality control in this model.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#207
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Scytale wrote: If you don't go through Josh then the site gets flooded with dozens of crappy paid for mods. Josh is the quality control in this model.
and 99% of those dont get bought.

if we introduce a small entry fee the problem vanishes.
But the advantages described by Surface Reflection disappear; quality, not determination, should be the deciding factor - and this is the resume-worthy material that the modder could use. It would be an achievement to get something like this through. That way when the community sees a package for sale developed by a third party, they'd know it was Josh approved, rather than rubbish written by some guy who thought he was a whole lot better at content development than he actually is.

Paywall != quality assurance
Last edited by Scytale on Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#208
Scytale wrote:*snip*
I agree with Cornflakes, but the flooding can easily be wed through, sort by popularity, or even just listen to everyone else on the forums, the crap mods can be there, and it's possible to not have to see them, but still even with crappy mods, they might have a good idea, they might just need a community to refine them

~Sly
IVE BEEN OUT OF MY MIND A LONG TIME
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#209
So.... How is that a better solution than having Josh decide what is the best quality? Remember, these 'mods' would now be better described as DLC. As a game developer I'd want to have some control over what takes my game's name. I don't want a pile of steaming turd calling itself an extension to my game.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: MrPerson and 2 guests

cron