DUST Search - Well, the steam community is exploding

Knight Soiaire wrote:

25% is **** all for doing most of the work on the mod. Think its also the fact that other **** companies like EA/Ubisoft will see the potential here and begin allowing people to mod their games and then sell those mods.

Only problem I see is the 75% cut. I think an option to donate or allow the customer to control where most of the money goes much like Humble Bundles would fix this problem.

Quote:

This is the most relevant question. Paying for mods on its own is not a bad idea, as long as its done in a reasonable fashion. I would gladly pay for mods that actively add value to my gaming experience.

HOWEVER!

In a world where Steam can not be trusted to keep quality control over full-blown games and early access titles, can we trust that this system won't be abused?

The answer is plain to see already, only a few days into this matter: People stealing mods from each other, and posting horse genitalia at unbelievable prices. And let's not even talk about the actual quality of the mods - hell if anyone checked compatibilities / incompatibilities with the current game version / other popular mods. Or if the mods work in the first place, which is an entirely different matter - who's to say whether or not I deliver on what I claim my mod does? Or how smoothly it accomplishes it?

Again, if we can't trust Steam to do Quality Control on full-fledged games, we can't even begin to fathom to trust Steam to do Quality Control on mods.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4582	Posted - 2015.04.26 15:51:00 - [1] - Quote Knight Soiaire wrote: 25% is ** all for doing most of the work on the mod. Think its also the fact that other companies like EA/Ubisoft will see the potential here and begin allowing people to mod their games and then sell those mods. Only problem I see is the 75% cut. I think an option to donate or allow the customer to control where most of the money goes much like Humble Bundles would fix this problem. Indeed. Even if there are reasons why the direct slider could not be applied at least allowing the modder to define - or at minimum have some input into - the price distribution ratio would be reasonable. Then there's also this Quote:** This is the most relevant question. Paying for mods on its own is not a bad idea, as long as its done in a reasonable fashion. I would gladly pay for mods that actively add value to my gaming experience. HOWEVER! In a world where Steam can not be trusted to keep quality control over full-blown games and early access titles, can we trust that this system won't be abused? The answer is plain to see already, only a few days into this matter: People stealing mods from each other, and posting horse genitalia at unbelievable prices. And let's not even talk about the actual quality of the mods - hell if anyone checked compatibilities / incompatibilities with the current game version / other popular mods. Or if the mods work in the first place, which is an entirely different matter - who's to say whether or not I deliver on what I claim my mod does? Or how smoothly it accomplishes it? Again, if we can't trust Steam to do Quality Control on full-fledged games, we can't even begin to fathom to trust Steam to do Quality Control on mods. He's got a point if indeed Valve/Steam provides no posting/listing standards or QA not only does it open the door for all sorts of messes (mods when done wrong can mess with your gaming experience in a number of ways, even when done right they don't all play well together). So you ave a situation where a modder can make a thing in good faith and then be lambasted as making a 'cash grab' because his mod uses some of the same base assets as another more popular mod thus making this new mod "broken" on any of the clients running the more established mod. Beyond that there's the interesting question of "30% for what?" Bethesda charging 45% for holding the IP rights is arguably high (I tend to think it's high but there's at least a debate to be had there) but if Steam is providing no QA, no customer service, fact checking to avoid mod/mod asset theft from other content creators et al then what is their cut based on? Why is their cut a solid 30% while the IP holder (Bethesda) and the content creator (mod maker) have to exist in a Zero Sum relationship with each other? The internet being what it is maybe Valve has put forth their answer to this and I haven't seen it (if so I'd love someone to link it here), but it seems like a very pertinent question that needs answered and frankly "because steam is huge" cannot qualify as a sufficient justification, being bigger than someone else does not equate to the right to define the dynamics between yourself and other parties... ability to do so? Yes sometimes. Right to do so? Not so much. 0.02 ISK CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!