Return to “General”

Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#46
Mistycica wrote:
Poet1960 wrote:
Mistycica wrote:It's an insubstantial amount of money, and it gives them the happy to actually 'own' something, and to have helped the creator, even if you just tunnel them into it with no free option.
Uh, if they wanted to help the creator, then the donations would have been enough. They don't want to own it, they just want to use it. They already paid for the game, a mod is a modification of that game. So it doesn't matter how insubstantial it is, if they didn't donate to "help" the creator when it was an option, it is certainly not going to be a major driving force to get them to pay for what they could have donated for in the first place.
That's the point. They don't want to donate if it's voluntary. But they do if it's a small amount but forced, and then rationalize their spending as something they did out of their own good heart after the fact, and connect more with the mod they chipped in for, for the same reason. They'll see it as a huge bargain, they got a cool mod for about the price of three pieces of peanuts after all! The big word is cognitive dissonance reduction, I think. People don't do things because they thought them through, they just rationalize the choices they made.

So, your goal is to use marketing trickery, to force people to pay for a product they already get for free, in return for nothing that benefits them. That about sum it up?
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#47
Poet1960 wrote: So, your goal is to use marketing trickery, to force people to pay for a product they already get for free, in return for nothing that benefits them. That about sum it up?
I think that mods that actually get done and done in time might be a benefit for the consumer, I'm not sure... :crazy:
Not talking about monetizing mods currently out, but funding new ones, through a system akin to the ones that do the same thing to our brains, and we love it - Steam/Charity Bundles/Mobile App Stores. Feel free to do your pet project free for greater publicity if you can afford to do that, but also let people ask for a price on their work, instead of begging for handouts. Mod is funded, maker gets cash in pocket, royalties from mods keep the game dev alive in dead periods (that single player games invariably get), and the game alive longer through focus on modding.

But if you think about it that way, yep. Yep, that's exactly what I'm proposing :lol:
panic
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#48
Poet1960 wrote:So, your goal is to use marketing trickery, to force people to pay for a product they already get for free, in return for nothing that benefits them. That about sum it up?
What are they paying for that they already get for free? It's not the mod, they don't already have that.

What are they forced to do? Sounds like they have the option to buy the mod or not buy the mod.

What doesn't benefit them? If mods don't provide entertainment, why do people download them?

What trickery? Charging money for something?
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#49
aspman wrote: So rather than the traditional way we cant seem to break away from with our thinking, lets consider this to help, as an alternative ...

LT Game $30 (or whatever RRP it ends up) - produce free mods using LTSL
LT-DLC-Creator $xxx (and/or revenue share model) - produce DLC using LTSL (same thing as above, just gives right to charge)

Now it is OK to charge because we gave Josh loads more money, and users are happy to pay because its branded DLC. :?

And if that is correct, then on top of whatever the modding community are up to, a potential ARMY of indie developers will be chucking quality DLC at you all over the place.
Hey aspman I think this part of your post got derailed.
LTP Fleet Battles on Youtube
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#52
Some of the logic here baffles me. Please, explain to me, how going from a model that has worked for years, has created stunning mods, and all for free, will somehow be improved, by forcing people to pay for them? What will improve? The quality sure won't be any better. If you want to get paid for coding, get a job with a company or create your own game.

I find it hard to understand the mentality of someone who currently gets a quality or relatively good product at no cost, but for some reason, insists on being charged for it. If you feel it is worth it, then donate, and let others make up their own mind instead of creating a forced situation.

I kinda think the only people would generally support this kind of idea, are the same ones who plan to profit from it at the expense of everyone else.
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#53
Profit, while not in principle bad, is in my view bad for derivative works like (edit: from, not like) LT. The only way I can see that charging for mods would be right is if the modder and Josh worked out an arrangement, and released the mod as third party DLC.

I do not believe that one should be able to commercialise a mod without permission from Josh. Even if you call it a "donation". And even then, the outcome is not in the spirit of what modding has always been - you're essentially making it DLC.

As Poet said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Last edited by Scytale on Thu Dec 04, 2014 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#54
Scytale wrote:Profit, while not in principle bad, is in my view bad for derivative works like LT. The only way I can see that charging for mods would be right is if the modder and Josh worked out an arrangement, and released the mod as third party DLC.

I do not believe that one should be able to commercialise a mod without permission from Josh. Even if you call it a "donation". And even then, the outcome is not in the spirit of what modding has always been - you're essentially making it DLC.

As Poet said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Kudos for being more concise than I was. :lol: If it ain't broke....
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#55
Poet1960 wrote:Some of the logic here baffles me. Please, explain to me, how going from a model that has worked for years, has created stunning mods, and all for free, will somehow be improved, by forcing people to pay for them? What will improve? The quality sure won't be any better. If you want to get paid for coding, get a job with a company or create your own game.

I find it hard to understand the mentality of someone who currently gets a quality or relatively good product at no cost, but for some reason, insists on being charged for it. If you feel it is worth it, then donate, and let others make up their own mind instead of creating a forced situation.

I kinda think the only people would generally support this kind of idea, are the same ones who plan to profit from it at the expense of everyone else.
Why couldn't you improve on quality or delivery times at any point? Why couldn't you improve on selection of mods and number of people in modding? The fact that brilliant mods exist doesn't disprove the need for a monetization system than seeing a Kickstarter making it big disproves the existence of a dozen others who failed. Or the one that succeeded couldn't have been done better and faster, just because it was finished. You cannot call something not broken because it works occasionally.

Why would you have to start your own company or join one to get paid, to be able to ask for money for your work? Freelance artists don't join graphics agencies to make a living, and they don't make their own tools. Hell, some just work from photos and photoshop them about. Some people sell song mashup albums. There is no shame on working alone from someone else's shoulders, and certainly no shame in expecting to get paid, while sharing with the original creator (which music remixers don't actually do by the way!). Derivative works deserve recognition and the right to be considered your own, going as far as selling them.

I think it shouldn't be the consumer making the price - it should be the creator.

And yes, you got me, I own Nexusmods and want to host the next big thing in digital distribution ;)
panic
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#56
Tbh the main issue here is that people should be paid for creating good content. But at the end of the day if they are building that content into someone else's product that person still has a right to define the terms. Imo mods becoming paid creates a subsystem that can alienate people. We have seen time and time again that if mod creators do a really good job they are likely to be paid anyway in some way. Yes some mods never get finished because of lack of funds but that probably isn't something that needs to be fixed. It isn't broken. Yes lots of people have plans that don't meet their end goal. Do we need to subsidize every half baked idea? No. Tbh lt is a engine. If you use any commercial engine you potentially have to pay. So in all honesty mod creators should be happy that they aren't having to pay on top just to use the engine.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#57
Mistycica wrote:
Poet1960 wrote:Some of the logic here baffles me. Please, explain to me, how going from a model that has worked for years, has created stunning mods, and all for free, will somehow be improved, by forcing people to pay for them? What will improve? The quality sure won't be any better. If you want to get paid for coding, get a job with a company or create your own game.

I find it hard to understand the mentality of someone who currently gets a quality or relatively good product at no cost, but for some reason, insists on being charged for it. If you feel it is worth it, then donate, and let others make up their own mind instead of creating a forced situation.

I kinda think the only people would generally support this kind of idea, are the same ones who plan to profit from it at the expense of everyone else.
Why couldn't you improve on quality or delivery times at any point? Why couldn't you improve on selection of mods and number of people in modding? The fact that brilliant mods exist doesn't disprove the need for a monetization system than seeing a Kickstarter making it big disproves the existence of a dozen others who failed. Or the one that succeeded couldn't have been done better and faster, just because it was finished. You cannot call something not broken because it works occasionally.

Why would you have to start your own company or join one to get paid, to be able to ask for money for your work? Freelance artists don't join graphics agencies to make a living, and they don't make their own tools. Hell, some just work from photos and photoshop them about. Some people sell song mashup albums. There is no shame on working alone from someone else's shoulders, and certainly no shame in expecting to get paid, while sharing with the original creator (which music remixers don't actually do by the way!). Derivative works deserve recognition and the right to be considered your own, going as far as selling them.

I think it shouldn't be the consumer making the price - it should be the creator.

And yes, you got me, I own Nexusmods and want to host the next big thing in digital distribution ;)
LOL. Really? It shouldn't be the consumer who sets the price? You are partially correct. A creator usually does set the price. The problem is, is there a market for, or people willing to pay the expressed price? YOU may think your painting is on the same level as Rembrandt, unfortunately, the general public thinks it stinks. So you can go ahead and charge whatever you want, the question is, will anyone pay it?
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#58
aspman wrote: [...]

As mentioned in the OP, donate buttons wont cut it from what I have read from Skyrim modders, its a nice gesture and gets a bit of revenue, but not the level to attract indie devs to switch to providing top quality content in LT.
And yet there's plenty of outstanding mods for Skyrim - armor and weapons with nearly professional quality models and textures, followers with thousands of lines and location/quest-based comments, and even a couple of DLC-sized expansions. Of course, for every great or even good mod, there are a hundred or so mediocre ones, but there won't be more under this system just because modders can charge for their work. In fact, there would likely be even more rushed or low quality mods made by people who just want to make a quick buck.


Some Skyrim modders (mostly on Nexus) already seem to almost abuse their control over their creations. I've seen a few people who threaten to throw a tantrum and stop modding if anyone ever uploads their content elsewhere, or take down their mod because of trolls and rude comments. Allowing monetization just further encourages such legal-but-not-exactly-ethical behavior. If someone would put actual effort into making sock accounts to get more worthless endorsements on Nexus, more would do it to trick a few people into buying their mod.

Mistycica wrote:That's the point. They don't want to donate if it's voluntary. But they do if it's a small amount but forced, and then rationalize their spending as something they did out of their own good heart after the fact, and connect more with the mod they chipped in for, for the same reason. They'll see it as a huge bargain, they got a cool mod for about the price of three pieces of peanuts after all! The big word is cognitive dissonance reduction, I think. People don't do things because they thought them through, they just rationalize the choices they made.
I'm not going to lie: I won't be donating to any mod authors, and I won't be any more likely to give them money just because I can't get the mod otherwise. Perhaps many people on this forum would pay, but they're probably here because they were willing to give money to Josh's Kickstarter. There's no sugarcoating the fact most people aren't going to bother paying even a small sum to download a mod.

It would be a shame to see the modding potential of this game ruined or at least substantially reduced just because some people insist on having everyone compensate the almighty content creator. I don't want sound like I'm mad at you guys for wanting to support modders - it's great that you're more selfless than me - but you can do that by donating already.
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#59
In the mind of the community, modabbility is often such a big thing because it provides variation on the game for free, among other things. If people start charging for mods, people who might otherwise get the mod in a packaged DLC form might refuse to get it out of principle. I think if you charge for a mod, demand for the mod will go down because "Why should I be paying for mods now?". But even more generally, Poet's comment brings up a very relevant point regarding mods - they do very often not have the production quality that DLC or fully finished games have (flawed releases aside). Mods are community made; in this sense, they're a little like fanfiction.

Who pays for fanfiction?
Post

Re: Should mods be free?

#60
Just have Josh decide. It's his game. :shh:

And LT is basically a game engine, in the same vein as Unity. If someone creates something that is not Limit Theory out of it, then I see no reason for them not sending it to Josh for permission to market it. If he says no then no. If he says yes OTOH... :ghost:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron