Why shouldn't mod developers be able to charge for

>>381281636
I would be okay with that, but only if 100% of the money charged goes to the mod developer. The game's developer/publisher already got the price they charged me for their product, they aren't getting a cent more for work they did not do.

Because it opens a very large can of worms. If said mod contains any sort of proprietary assets, then that would mean a portion of the proceeds would have to be sent to the original asset creator, and that also assumes that the mod maker properly credits them in the first place. Plus the whole piracy scene would probably start distributing the mods in a heartbeat, and no modders have the resources to go after pirates the way large studios do.

In the end, charging for mods really just creates a lot of hassle and would just lead to asset theft and flooding the market with knockoff versions of other mods to drown out the quality ones.

>>381281636
Cuz i'm a cheap nigger and I don't appreciate leaches who are good enough to mod a game but not good enough to make a game try to jew us for their shitty mods.

>>381281636
>You can't charge for mods that use assets from other games
>Every mod would cost money under a system that lets you viably charge for them; there would no longer be a point to release free mods
>Too little quality control and you end up paying for shit mods, too much and the mod developers don't have freedom
>Monetizing a craft inevitably pushes the market to what is profitable, not what is good

charge for them? fuck no
ask for donations? why not, not gonna pay anyway

>>381281636

Because 99% of mod devs don't know what their shit is worth.

>>381281636
If your trying to use CS at a comparison its a very poor one. CS was a completely new game just using the same engine that became popular enough for valve to officially publish and sell. They didn't just throw a few new models into a pre-existing game.

>>381281793
I disagree, i think the studio that developed the game devs should get 10%, publisher get 5% (ex: steam), THAN rest to mod dev (85%). The 100% ideology goes ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE and pleases NO ONE in some dream scenario.

>>381283293
Go to your boss and say you dont need a paycheck, just donations

>>381283770

>hey, you need to pay me for this thing that's been classified as a hobby for decades!
>why?
>because I want to make a living doing it

I keep forgetting that most of /v/ has no idea what FOSS is or that there will always be plenty of people willing to make software for free.

>>381283425
CS was charged as a full game when it was released, IIRC.

Why shouldn't a smaller mod be able to charge $5 or $10, especially if the full game devs will be doing quality control and ensuring interoperability?

>>381283770
making mods is a hobby, you don't get paid for that

>>381281636
Because it's problematic both from the side of mod devs and consumers.

Consumers will become further entitled if mods come with a price tag. Asserting what is and is not worth X amount of money and generally pushing developers further away with all the shitflinging.

Developers will enter the scene that purposely release low quality content in an effort to make a buck. Shitty mods certainly exist but flooding the market with garbage that is either blatantly garbage or just doesn't work only creates hassle. Assets are also a huge issue as many mods might try to prevent other mods from emulating what their own mod does or prevent other mods from working altogether.

Sorting all of this out would probably be such a hassle that mods will end up being worse. So much time will be devoted to making sure it can be sold that nothing worthwhile will end up making through the check.

>>381284218

>CS was charged as a full game when it was released, IIRC.

Only when Valve bought out the team and put it on Steam. Before that, the game was a free mod that used Half Life's engine and ran on WON servers.

>Why shouldn't a smaller mod be able to charge $5 or $10, especially if the full game devs will be doing quality control and ensuring interoperability?

This assumes that the devs will actually do quality control.

>>381284221
If they want to charge money for it, why shouldn't they be able to?

Nobody is forcing mod devs to charge for their mods, if they don't want to.

Why are you trying to force them to develop for free, if they don't want to?

>>381284161
>>hey, you need to pay me for this thing that's been classified as a hobby for decades!
Like every sport ever?

>>381284432
CS 1.0 and earlier were free. When they were bought out and later created 1.6, you had to pay.

That was a decision they made.

Why would you prevent them from having that opportunity?

>>381281636
because mods generally don't have professional production values
also valve turning a bunch of mods into retail ruined them like TFC and DoD

>>381284469

Sports have been subsidized by numerous parties since the Greeks and Romans. Mods have been the work of personal initiative since the 90s and got by fine on donations. Why do modders all of a sudden NEED to charge for mods?

>>381284521

That was a decision they made while under the employ of Valve. It's much easier to make that decision when you're already assured a steady paycheck for your work.

>programmers should be able to make a living on their hard work and software
>unless they do anything involving video games

is /v/ completely saturated by entitled children?

>>381285105

Plenty of them do, it's called making actual games rather than pulling a few assets from elsewhere to add on to a pre-existing game.

>>381285014
They made the decision to sell the IP to Valve knowing it would be spun off and sold.

Regardless, they were paid for their work so why shouldn't everyone have that opportunity?

>Whines that modders should be able to charge for their content
>Doesn't play video games

Okay.

>>381285325
You're ridiculous. The game developers created engines and are actively licensing those assets to the mod developers for that express use.

Outside of copyright violations of other company's IP, which these would not cover, what's the issue?

>>381285348

>Regardless, they were paid for their work so why shouldn't everyone have that opportunity?

Because they made a mod popular enough to garner the attention of a large company willing to buy the whole project from them while giving them jobs. I'd bet even money that CS wouldn't have been a quarter as successful as it was if the modders tried to sell it themselves off the bat.

>>381285515

The point you're missing is that there are plenty of ways programmers can make money from vidya, but modding simply isn't one, and outside of straight extortion from publishers/original developers the gaming masses aren't going to go along with it.

>>381285515
Putting your assets and someone else's engine together is called making your own game.

>>381285903
So your position is that devs, like Valve, should make money on mods, like Counter-Strike, but not the people who made the mods?

Should a construction company not be able to charge to build a deck for a house just because the house was already there?

I'm surprised you can't see how ridiculous this is.

>>381285937
What's your point?

>>381283627
I disagree again, subhuman modders are leeching from the effort and creativity of others. Paid mods are fine, so long as 100% of profits go to the developer whose work the mod used as a crutch.

>>381281636
they should but steam and bethesda shouldnt get a fucking 60-70% cut

>>381286749

>So your position is that devs, like Valve, should make money on mods, like Counter-Strike, but not the people who made the mods?

There's a world of difference between buying out the modding team and selling the mod as a full game and the mod team/individual selling the mod itself. As for the construction analogy, the original owners of the house are paying the construction company to make changes to the original, not guests of the house, which is closer to the Counter Strike situation than the modern mod sale proposal.

In short, first make a mod with a quality level near Counter Strike, shop it out to publisher/developers, then go about selling it.

>>381283627
steam takes a 30% cut my friend

devs also take a 30% cut

>>381287017
The game devs used other people's tools too, under a license.

They are "leeching" from the effoort and creativity of Intel (x86 instruction set), Nvidia/AMD (graphics instruction sets), Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/Apple (the underlying operating system), the people who developed their development tools and compilers, etc.

How is this any different?

>>381287276
Valve made a SHITLOAD of money on Counterstrike being a mod because you had to own HL1 to run it. It was a major selling point for a lot of people.

The game dev in this situation (Bethesda) is clearly okay with this.

Why are entitled children all up in arms?

>>381287336
Steam takes 30% off the top, then the dev/mod dev would split the rest. So a $10 mod would be:

$3 - steam
$2.10 - game dev
$4.90 - mod dev

I'm okay with this