The assault on open modding has expanded again. Mod.io, previously seen as one of the possible ways to save gaming from "Steam workshop", has introduced paid mods. It's disgusting that companies keep trying to claim that they need to be paid for mods to exist. And with currency obfuscation, of course, because no shit system can do without that.

Blog post about it from June
https://blog.mod.io/introducing-mod-io-marketplace-c17fe6ae7938

Gross. And tends to be a hell of a snarl if a mod has dependencies or a less than open licence.

Quote: "[...] we’re excited to introduce [...] a marketplace solution, allowing developers to enable creators to sell [their] User-Generated Content for [these developers'] game(s)"
-----
Question:
Who's keeping modders from offering their mods for free?

- I wonder what mod creators think about this change .
- Will the mod.io website be flooded with payware mods that were previously free on Steam ?
- Will this be the end of the Steam Workshop monopoly ?

Many modders find it fair for a way to monetize their work;
Not necessarily sell them, but be rewarded for their work; Doubt it. This won't happen simply because people are lazy.
They will always do what's easier for them.
That's also how Steam maintain its monopoly, making their launcher have everything everyone needs as a way to predate on customer convenience - easy to access mods.

'Why would I care to open the browser and download it from Nexus/Moddb/Mod.io if I can download it directly inside this launcher?'

How Nexus continuously grow, then?
Simply because not all games have a Steam workshop of their own and because of mod creators will also based on Nexus monetization through DPs.

I'd say this doesn't affect the current landscape of modding at all, as the big players still Nexus, Moddb (mostly for legacy) and Steam Workshop with its predatory environment.

One thing to remember: mod.io isn't just a mod website, it's a mod system that gets integrated directly into games (like Workshop does) that also has website fall-back built in. An example: Old World uses it.

*shrugh*

If someone want to have a little bit of income from making mods, let them
If someone want to pay for those mods, let them

I am not going to dictate how people should spend their monies, same as I dont want anyone to dictate how I should spend my monies.

We have to consider:

1. Did the original devpubs consent to the modmaking? If no, then modders are selling derivative works that are not clearly theirs and are opening themselves up to potential lawsuits. If not, then more agreements that increase the price of mods because some of that has to be remitted back to the original devpubs.

2. The spirit of modding. Most mods were made with the pure intent for free. Sure, monetizing mods might bring more talent to the modmaking pool. But when money is now required for something that was originally free/optional donations, it encourages other modmakers to monetize their work and desecrates the original intent of modding.

I'd prefer to keep it unadulterated. Keep mods free even if we lose out on potentially some of the highest quality mods out there. Because I'd rather play a modded game crafted out of fan love than money perverting everything.

Thats not what derivate wwork means, this is already a legal issue today with free mods. If you want to make mods for a game that the devs do not want mods for, it is an ethical problem, not a legal one. The same point applies to free mods today. If someone want to continue the "spirit of modding" (whatever that may be, but I guess your definition applies to eveyone, becuase you said so), this does not change anything. No one is forcing anyone to monetize mods. It is just another option for those who wants


I see other legal and practical problems, but the above two is not it

^This!

Remember, when Steam introduced the opportunity for modders, to get paid for their mods?

I saw modders who were, prior to that introduction, hailed as "modern day saints" by the gaming "community", then getting instantly tagged as "greedy" and "traitors", if they dared to take up that opportunity.

Because, apparently, you can't ask people, which directly benefit from your work, to pay a small obolus as compensation for all the work, you do for them.

Gamers then like: "Nobody asked them to mod these games, I definitely didn't ask them to mod these games. They did it all on their own account, because they like doing it, why should I have to pay for that!? It's not even THEIR games!! How can they sell something, which isn't even theirs? Grifters! That's what they are!"

Note to all (wannabe) modders: the gaming "community" is an ungrateful bunch.

Nope, go read what derivative works means.

- https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

- https://gammalaw.com/the-surprising-role-of-copyrights-in-the-wildly-creative-world-of-video-games-gameplay-and-mods/

- https://www.vondranlegal.com/video-game-mod-and-the-law OK? I know it's a personal opinion here. But if your changes means I can't mod in Shrek for free because mods went from a legally grey area out of fan passion to another revenue stream IP owners like NBCUniveral can tap into, then this means your changes made everything worse because less people can access it now. - assuming that the Shrek mod was going to be made anyway.

The legally grey area, because it's free from money, is what makes mods fun. I don't find officially licensed FortNite skins fun because I have to pay $20 USD real life money for a virtual currency just for the chance to play as Goku in it. Do you think this will be the same with aesthetic mods?

You can through donations, which is how the system currently works. That's not how I see it. You're presuming we're all entitled.

If someone makes a free mod, then cool maybe I'll use it. If someone doesn't because they're expecting to be paid, I'm not going to lose my cool over it. I'll either play the game without it anyway or I won't have picked up the game. I've got life, a huge backlog, and other stuff to put my time into.

Personally, I play with vanilla enhanced mods that better the experience. If the game isn't a complete broken mess, it really doesn't matter if that mod exists If a mod was so crucial to play the game, then the original game wasn't worth getting from the get-go and the original devpubs shouldn't be rewarded for releasing the game in such a piss poor state at all.

You are good at copy-pasta, well done. Next try reading your sources and understand them.

No, it is not a grey area, it is quite clear.

WHat I got from this is "what if there will be a mod I want that I need to pay for then, woe is me"

Ah, so a voluntary donation, of which you decide, whether it gets made, and - if yes - in which height it gets made, is ok for you?
But having a price set, by the person, who's probably most capable of evaluating the product's worth, is not?

Question: at which point of the transaction - would you say - should that voluntary donation be requested?

"Before" or "after" you received the product and could use it?

Now: if your answer is "before" - then how do you determine the height of a fair donation?
After all: you couldn't test the product yet, and can't really evaluate its worth.

And if your answer is "after" - do you honestly see yourself pay a fair price for something, which is already irrevocable in your possession?

I mean - let's be honest: at this point, a $1 donation will already serve to calm the conscience, right?
Even if $1 wouldn't necessarily be a fair price for what you received.

And mind you: that's already assuming, that you pay something at all "after the fact"...and don't conveniently "forget" about it.

Oh, absolutely.
For very good reasons, and based on lots of experiences (of which quite a few were made here on this forum).

This means if someone creates a community patch mod to fix a game, we will need to pay for it?

It means mod makers can choose to charge for their mods. So perhaps in some cases that might end up happening?