Paid Mods on Steam Workshop - A Discussion

[Komag]

I think it could turn out well, not nearly as bad as has been mentioned here.

There are lots of coding communities that thrive with friendly help, developers who are working for money, like the Roku developer forums, or many mobile game development forums.

And custom assets that you'd like to share you can just slap with a Creative Commons license, and no one else can use them in a For Profit mod but could use them in a free mod. It gives you more options, I don't think that will ruin anything.

Plus, face it, most mods really stink bad, it certainly can't get any worse, and the chance to make some fair money for quality work would motivate some much higher quality mods. And I don't think many people will get all mean about it, since it's unlikely anyone would be able to earn a living at it or whatever, it's probably more like bonus pizza money as a nice reward, maybe afford a new PC or something.

Agreed that the percentage should be more like 50-50. Is the 25% confirmed? That's pretty low.

[Komag]

Just looking at the stats for Master Quest on Steam Workshop
Almost 20,000 subscribers.
Assuming a $0.50 "pricetag", I'll assume only 1/10 people would have paid for the mod, that's 2000 subscribers
That's $1000
Then I get my measly 25%, $250, enough for a new Kindle Fire HD or something, cool!

[JohnWordsworth]

The 25% thing is almost definitely true - have read it on a bunch of sites, some of which quoting the EULA. 50-50 would allow 50% for the modder, 25% for the game dev and 25% for Steam. Now that actually feels fair.

But yeah - I agree with most of what you are saying Komag, especially your counter to the argument of "allowing people to sell mods will mean more, lower quality mods". There are already a whole bunch of them - they just sink off the radar. It's a bit more clear cut with something like LOG - I would definitely pay $1 for a mod with good ratings and a good looking intro. The main downside, is that I would need some confidence in a mod before I just randomly download it (barrier to entry). But I think the good mods would float to the top and then I would happily pay $1-3 for them. I know it doesn't sound like much, but I think that would be cool.

We all know though, the costs will likely be much higher - another thing that will ruin what could be a good thing.

Overall, I really like the idea that modders get some compensation for their time and effort - it will ultimately mean they can spend more time on it and we get better mods to play. I'm just not overly sold on this approach and how it's being handled (but I also understand that donations just don't work - 1 donation for 10,000 downloads isn't going to allow modders to spend more time on their projects!).

[JohnWordsworth]

Evidence of the 25% Revenue Share

[Dr.Disaster]

Evidence of the 25% Revenue Share

And that's before taxes

IMO it's the most disgusting thing i've seen lately. At least Steam included a 24h refund clause to this BS so players can't get ripped off that easy.

[Phitt]

The question is - why does every single thing in this world has to be about money? Is that really necessary? Modding was a labor of love. I know, that sounds cheesy. But it is the truth. Now you will get some (few) higher quality mods, but it will be something you buy just like anything else. Whether you buy a game or a DLC or a mod, there is no difference anymore. I'm not a hippie or anything like that, but it feels disgusting to me. Next time one of my neighbours comes around and asks for a few eggs he/she forgot to buy I will charge them $0.5 per egg plus a weekend fee of $2 plus an expense allowance of $1. What a great world we live in.

The competition is much more direct than on a dev forum for mobile apps, so I don't think the comparison applies here. If I make a quest mod for Skyrim and you make a quest mod for Skyrim then we are in direct competition for sales. You can still go to the 3ds max or a lua forum to ask for help, but the modding communities for specific games will change for the worse or will cease to exist (except for advertising your 'products' of course).

And sure, I can slap a creative commons license on my resources, but the problem is that no one will do that anymore. I admit the even I wouldn't do that if everyone else was a greedy bastard. Why should I? I would probably stop producing resources altogether before I did that though.

I think a good mod for an extremely popular AAA title like Skyrim can probably make much more than just pizza money (you expect $250 from a Grimrock mod, so what do you think a Skyrim mod with 1000x as many downloads will earn you?) and you don't need more than pizza moneyanyway to make people mad.

[minmay]

Glad that I boycotted Steam Workshop in advance.

If Grimrock starts allowing sale of mods I will immediately cease all work on my mods and not release any of the contents. I will also cease supporting my already-released material (but not attempt to remove it). I have taken the calculated risk of trusting the Grimrock modding terms on this subject, despite the weaselly bit at the end (seems to be in every license these days...); I hope that I will not come to regret it.
I'm still not sure uploading anything to Nexus was a good idea due to their donation function.

"New Ways to Support Workshop Creators" is pretty funny though, you have to admit. They're not even pretending.

[Azel]

Has anyone bothered to look over the items that are for sale with Skyrim?
http://tinyurl.com/qcx59us

Some nice stuff for a fair price. Plus, these are single player experiences so what harm is it causing in reality? A lot of what I'm reading in this thread is little more than conjecture; attempts to predict a negative impact in the future without any factual information to reference. I can't think of one real world scenario where the gaming community suffered after people were paid for their work. And no one in this thread has mentioned one either. Komag actually made realistic references which supports the positive aspects of this decision.

The Grimrock Modding community is fairly small with a specific group providing support between both games. It would be nice to see new friendly faces and a larger community. Perhaps this decision by Steam could help that. Then again, maybe the naysayers are right and this decision simply isn't right for Grimrock. No point really arguing until AH makes a decision on this anyway

[Slayer82]

I understand both sides of the argument. Essentially, working on something for months is labour, which is work that would be better served earning for it.
I spent five months making my mod, but in no way do I feel that I deserve money for it. I used assets, coding/scripting, and assistance from this community to achieve that goal. Why should I benefit from some of their work? Even though it's 99% my work, without the communities contribution I wouldn't have achieved what I did.

Here are some questions I find divide the debate:
* How would the community survive without sharing?
* If you work with others, then what is the percentage of revenue? For example, how can you calculate time spent on the mod? Time spent modding may differ from a beginner to an expert.
* How will the quality remain if there is money to be made? Why not release 3-4 average mods instead of one large complete mod?
* How would you pay other modders for their assistance? For instance, I used Daveyx0's Warden and Slime variations, but they are changed assets form Almost Human? That $1/£1/€1 will have to be divided.
* Would third party End User Licensing Agreements be changed, as they would be privy to your income if you use their software to create a mod?
* Will modding survive if you have to buy the game, then the mods? Won't games just be shells that require Downloadable Content, Mods, and patches? Game corporations are already lazy regarding unfinished products, so why would they try harder when modders will do the work for them at 0% production costs?

Artists should be able to make an income, but this has the potential to destroy modding. That is unless the community keep creating free mods and as a result kills the paid notion.
If you wish to make money on games, then it's better to create a new title.
Modders improve a title by adding or manipulating what is already there - Imagine only playing Vanilla Skyrim.
Art is tricky. I can spend three months painting a picture to sell to a gallery for $500. After the transaction, I am unable to earn an income form that artwork. However, I can spend one hour making a weapon for a game to have unlimited income forever. It’s a complex debate.

[Isaac]

Evidence of the 25% Revenue Share

It's not just 25%, it's 25% in the best case, but possibly less due to taxes, and.....
(It's also split between any contributors to the mod; who all have to agree on the split percentage.)
http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/work ... ppid=72850

*This one's interesting:

Q. Do I need to provide bank information even though I don’t want to receive revenue share on the item(s)?
A. Yes, you will need to provide valid bank information regardless of whether your item is a paid item or a free item.

http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/work ... nformation