|
Valve should have known better. They were taking something away from the consumers, or rather encouraging such taking, without providing anything in return but billionaire babble about money being like information (which it is if you don't actually need it for anything else. Say for instance if you happen to be a billionaire) and then wondered why it was returning little but ill-will. And that isn't getting to what I've been harping about this whole time regarding the dangers of swapping out standing incentives with monetary ones. The Snark fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Apr 29, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
That's probably why they chose to pilot it on an older game instead of having this happen with fallout 4. Although this has been done on other games this would be the first Bethesda game and relatively unrestricted compared to the other games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
If they did this same thing with Fallout 4, I don't think it would accomplish much more than hurting Fallout 4's sales. There are good ways to be going about this, but this institution of market Darwinism is backward and bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:For many customers it was an argument against buying such mods, because they didn't want to financially reward Bethesda for doing nothing and create a situation where not finishing games is more profitable to them than creating additional content for it. Sure, it was an argument, it was just one that personally I don't agree with for the reasons I stated. Gantolandon posted:A customer has the right not to buy a product if they don't like where their money are going.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
The Snark posted:If they did this same thing with Fallout 4, I don't think it would accomplish much more than hurting Fallout 4's sales. There are good ways to be going about this, but this institution of market Darwinism is backward and bad. While I don't think it will help their sales, I don't think it will significantly hurt their sales either since the are quite a few people that are playing these games unmodded from the consoles alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
Gravy Jones posted:Yes. Of course they do. I don't even understand why this is part of the discussion. I don't understand the 'entitlement' part. Is your argument that a potential customer has no right to care where does their money go and use this as a factor of their decision? Is it wrong that people don't want to support certain business practices and complain about them? Lucid Dream posted:Sure, it was an argument, it was just one that personally I don't agree with for the reasons I stated. They have the right to refuse to support a product and voice their discontent if they don't like where their money goes. I don't see how that's controversial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:They have the right to refuse to support a product and voice their discontent if they don't like where their money goes. I don't see how that's controversial. Lucid Dream fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:I don't understand the 'entitlement' part. Is your argument that a potential customer has no right to care where does their money go and use this as a factor of their decision? Is it wrong that people don't want to support certain business practices and complain about them? In America the free market fixes everything so there's no need for complaints about lovely business practices, workers' unions or protests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
The Snark posted:If they did this same thing with Fallout 4, I don't think it would accomplish much more than hurting Fallout 4's sales. There are good ways to be going about this, but this institution of market Darwinism is backward and bad. I think the hype machine before Fallout 4 would drown out the paid mod hate, personally. Or at least lessen it considerably. Valve and Bethesda did not say they would never do this again. They chose their language very deliberately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:You act like I'm saying they can't voice their opinion, but I just disagree with it. I agree with many of the complaints (Need a longer refund period, refunds should go back to the funding source), but I don't think the consumer has the right to dictate the terms of distribution and licensing agreements between the modders and Bethesda/Valve. Were there any occurrences of customers dictating their terms to Bethesda? How was it done in your opinion and what made both companies to cave in?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
lol that anyone actually spent real life money on game mods while this was a thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Were there any occurrences of customers dictating their terms to Bethesda? How was it done in your opinion and what made both companies to cave in? Lucid Dream fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:lol that anyone actually spent real life money on game mods while this was a thing People did. Even on those lovely loving DOTA2 weapons. I called the guy that made those a fag on his facebook, so I feel like a badass right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Node posted:People did. Even on those lovely loving DOTA2 weapons. I called the guy that made those a fag on his facebook, so I feel like a badass right now. you sure put a lot of effort into youre low feffort stick like, what even is facebook?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:There were plenty of people telling Bethesda that they shouldn't be able to take the portion that they were taking. Its clear that the complaints as a whole led to the removal of the system, but that doesn't mean every single argument has merit. So wait, is it OK that a customer voices their opinion about Bethesda business practices, or is it dictatorship?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:You act like I'm saying they can't voice their opinion, but I just disagree with it. I agree with many of the complaints (Need a longer refund period, refunds should go back to the funding source), but I don't think the consumer has the right to dictate the terms of distribution and licensing agreements between the modders and Bethesda/Valve. Edit: People are welcome to voice their dissatisfaction with elements of the system (and they obviously did) but I think the position that Bethesda doesn't deserve signicant royalties for their IP is a much weaker argument than the others. There's no actual difference between "voicing your opinion" and "dictating the terms" in this scenario because no one in the community did or could force Valve or Bethesda to do anything, you're just using the latter term to mean "arguments I disagree with"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:So wait, is it OK that a customer voices their opinion about Bethesda business practices, or is it dictatorship? Lucid Dream posted:You act like I'm saying they can't voice their opinion, but I just disagree with it. I agree with many of the complaints (Need a longer refund period, refunds should go back to the funding source), but I don't think the consumer has the right to dictate the terms of distribution and licensing agreements between the modders and Bethesda/Valve. Edit: People are welcome to voice their dissatisfaction with elements of the system (and they obviously did) but I think the position that Bethesda doesn't deserve signicant royalties for their IP is a much weaker argument than the others. Thug Lessons posted:There's no actual difference between "voicing your opinion" and "dictating the terms" in this scenario because no one in the community did or could force Valve or Bethesda to do anything, you're just using the latter term to mean "arguments I disagree with"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:They obviously have the right to voice their opinion. I'm not arguing the ability for them to complain, I'm arguing that specific complaint is not a valid one. By all means explain why you think Bethesda deserves exorbitant cuts from other people's work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:By all means explain why you think Bethesda deserves exorbitant cuts from other people's work. They deserve significant royalties because they created a successful IP, provided modding tools, and provided an engine and an entire game full of assets to build on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:They deserve significant royalties because they created a successful IP, provided modding tools, and provided an engine and an entire game full of assets to build on. Many people who aren't getting paid contributed to mods in indirect ways. For example any mod that contains models was made in a program like Blender, and any mod that contains textures was made in a program like Photoshop. All of these programs are at least as complicated and required as much development as skyrim, arguably more. Further e.g. a ton of mods depend on SKSE to run. Do the the creators of these programs deserve exorbitant fees as well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:They obviously have the right to voice their opinion. I'm not arguing the ability for them to complain, I'm arguing that specific complaint is not a valid one. All right, so the customer who bought an empty mod with only a description obviously shouldn't be criticized, because who are you to judge them? On the other hand, if their refuse to buy a mod because they don't like where they money goes, this is just stupid. No hipocrisy there at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:All right, so the customer who bought an empty mod with only a description obviously shouldn't be criticized, because who are you to judge them? On the other hand, if their refuse to buy a mod because they don't like where they money goes, this is just stupid. No hipocrisy there at all. He's already explained. You can do whatever you want, and when he says you don't have the right to do it what he means is he disagrees with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Many people who aren't getting paid contributed to mods in indirect ways. For example any mod that contains models was made in a program like Blender, and any mod that contains textures was made in a program like Photoshop. All of these programs are at least as complicated and required as much development as skyrim, arguably more. Further e.g. a ton of mods depend on SKSE to run. Do the the creators of these programs deserve exorbitant fees as well? Gantolandon posted:All right, so the customer who bought an empty mod with only a description obviously shouldn't be criticized, because who are you to judge them? Gantolandon posted:On the other hand, if their refuse to buy a mod because they don't like where they money goes, this is just stupid. No hipocrisy there at all. edit: Just to it clear, I have no problem with people refusing to buy something for any reason, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their reason for refusing to buy it. People refusing to buy mods wasn't the reason for the shutdown of the system. Lucid Dream fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
I think Bethesda are profiting of the hard work and spent money of the whole computer industry and they should share a percentage of their profits to computer parts manufacturers. Without them Bethesda wouldn't make any money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Many people who aren't getting paid contributed to mods in indirect ways. For example any mod that contains models was made in a program like Blender, and any mod that contains textures was made in a program like Photoshop. All of these programs are at least as complicated and required as much development as skyrim, arguably more. Further e.g. a ton of mods depend on SKSE to run. Do the the creators of these programs deserve exorbitant fees as well? You have to pay for a license for Photoshop to use it. Blender gives the license for free but if you want to use Maya you have to buy a license for that. What exactly are you arguing here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:I suppose it depends on whether or not they are legally entitled to fees and if they choose to pursue the fees. If this is a legal argument, no one is disputing that Bethesda has a legal right to demand whatever they want. What people disagree with is the idea that modders will do all the work, and Bethesda will collect most of the money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
I don't think it's a convincing argument to point out how profit sharing is done in other parts of the software development industry as something that should be done at all in the first place, especially in this case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
snipermonkey posted:I think Bethesda are profiting of the hard work and spent money of the whole computer industry and they should share a percentage of their profits to computer parts manufacturers. Without them Bethesda wouldn't make any money. Yeah basically this. Everyone is dependent on everyone else, but that doesn't mean they should be obligated to pay everyone royalties. snipermonkey posted:I don't think it's a convincing argument to point out how profit sharing is done in other parts of the software development industry as something that should be done at all in the first place, especially in this case. I agree with this as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:If this is a legal argument, no one is disputing that Bethesda has a legal right to demand whatever they want. What people disagree with is the idea that modders will do all the work, and Bethesda will collect most of the money. When I bought Skyrim, I paid for my ability to play the game. I did not buy rights to use the engine and assets in any way I felt like and charge for the derivative works I created with it. Had they included the right to use their engine and assets in for-profit derivative works, I imagine the game would have been far more expensive. As it turns out, they were willing to offer those rights to people in exchange for a large portion of the purchase price of the derivative work. They picked a value that they thought was fair, and the modders are welcome to decide for themselves if they think the offer is fair. It is not the place of the consumer to tell the publisher how much they should ask and tell the modders how much they should be willing to accept. Lucid Dream fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:I suppose it depends on whether or not they are legally entitled to fees and if they choose to pursue the fees. Before, you didn't have any objections about really bad and lackluster mods being available in the market, because obviously people want to buy them and no one has the right to judge a customer for making a choice. Now you're judging people who make a choice not to buy a product because you disapprove their reasoning. Can people criticize others' spending choices or not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
I think people forget that Bethesda could just take all the mods that receive a "donation" or ad revenue and roll them into the base game as a free (or paid who knows) dlc update. And they'd be 100% in the right legally and probably morally too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Before, you didn't have any objections about really bad and lackluster mods being available in the market, because obviously people want to buy them and no one has the right to judge a customer for making a choice. Gantolandon posted:Now you're judging people who make a choice not to buy a product because you disapprove their reasoning. Gantolandon posted:Can people criticize others' spending choices or not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Before, you didn't have any objections about really bad and lackluster mods being available in the market, because obviously people want to buy them and no one has the right to judge a customer for making a choice. Now you're judging people who make a choice not to buy a product because you disapprove their reasoning. Can people criticize others' spending choices or not? Your objections deprived me and everyone else as consumers the choice period. Thats why people are attacking that viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:It is not the place of the consumer to tell the publisher how much they should ask and tell the modders how much they should be willing to accept. Actually, it's not your right to tell consumers what their "place" is, you sanctimonious prick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Actually, it's not your right to tell consumers what their "place" is, you sanctimonious prick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
bloodsacrifice posted:Your objections deprived me and everyone else as consumers the choice period. Thats why people are attacking that viewpoint. The customer is only allowed to express a positive opinion about any business scheme proposed to them and by no means should express dissatisfaction, less they risk robbing budding captains of industry of their God-given profit. Everyone speaking against paid mods should be ashamed of themselves. Why is no one thinking about entrepreneurs and their profits? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:Its my opinion, do I really need to append "in my opinion" to every sentence or something? It'd help with opinions straight out of a Fox News broadcast. E: Why don't these uppity 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Lucid Dream posted:When I bought Skyrim, I paid for my ability to play the game. I did not buy rights to use the engine and assets in any way I felt like and charge for the derivative works I created with it. Had they included the right to use their engine and assets in for-profit derivative works, I imagine the game would have been far more expensive. As it turns out, they were willing to offer those rights to people in exchange for a large portion of the purchase price of the derivative work. They picked a value that they thought was fair, and the modders are welcome to decide for themselves if they think the offer is fair. It is not the place of the consumer to tell the publisher how much they should ask and tell the modders how much they should be willing to accept. If they didn't want people to mod the game or profit from those mods, then they shouldn't have offered modability as a part of the game you paid for. It's one thing if modders use game assets to create a standalone paid game, but quite another to create a paid mod that still requires you to buy the original game. Ford and Toyota don't demand you to give a cut of your profits just because you used their pickup trucks to make money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:The customer is only allowed to express a positive opinion about any business scheme proposed to them and by no means should express dissatisfaction, less they risk robbing budding captains of industry of their God-given profit. Everyone speaking against paid mods should be ashamed of themselves. Why is no one thinking about entrepreneurs and their profits? You've torn down what could've been a brilliant business opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
snipermonkey posted:I don't think it's a convincing argument to point out how profit sharing is done in other parts of the software development industry as something that should be done at all in the first place, especially in this case. lol look at this literal child who's never worked a day in their life. Khorne posted:I don't get why people are freaking out about percentages. Oh no my income went from $0 to $tonsmore. Provided people actually use it. Don't you know employers ripping you off is just the way things are (don't you dare dispute the right of the hard worker "Beth Esda" to a 45% cut, how can you even think to dictate terms like that you loving Maoist!!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:57
|
|
