Posted February 19, 2017
FormerHuman: If Valve didn't support mods, then I don't think TF2 or CS would have the enormously significant presence they have today.
They may have supported them genuinely in the past. Not really relevant for the situation now, especially since the main thing they seem to have learnt is that mods can be monetised. Valve is a business, but your assessment of what a business is for couldn't be more jaded and cynical.
I'm not saying there aren't issues within what Valve does and how Steam operates, but making grand statements about how they don't care about the products they make or their user base is innacurate and obtuse.
Don't think I said they don't care about the products they make, they by and large care a lot about them as that's how they make money. As for their user base, they care enough not to want to alienate them, and that's all. It's also why lock in is important, as it raises the alienation threshold. If they cared they'd have things like a decent support system.
What was so infuriating about the 'paid-mods' fake controversy a while back was that it was stopped not by it not working, but by a kneejerk reaction so firm and misplaced that it never even got off the ground. This is counter productive - it needs to be tried, to see if it works or not, to have that data to analyse. if it doesn't work, it will go away, just like Steam Greenlight is being revised into, hopefully, a less exploitable platform.
Paid mods were a legit shit show, not some drummed up controversy. They had people stealing others' work for profit and the like (and Valve saying that was OK, no less), they had no support offered, they had the ridiculous revenue split- it wasn't made up fake controversy, they actually did the stuff they were accused of and for once reaped the whirlwind. As for greenlight- it was crap, but it will be replaced by crap because doing game submissions properly is hard and costs money, and Valve wants easy and cheap. They're either philosophically or practically (both, almost certainly) incapable of setting up a good system.
But who is determining what can and cannot be sold? Why is it something so binary? Why are people so against even having the discussion or the experiment take place? It's reactionary nonsense. Let's have it happen, and if it fails, it fails, and we can all reap the benefits of what happens next, because it will not be The End of anything but rather an evolutionary step towards something better.