|
The alternative is what's to stop a mod maker to say fuck it and just toss up a donate button? Or a link to his own website that he can collect the revenue on and using the steam client as just a host.
And yeah good luck calling things illegal on the internet and trying to shut it down. Ask the MPAA how well that's worked out for them.
How is valve jacking 75% of someone else's transformative work profit any different then some letsplayer or reviewer having his or her ad revenue hijacked by Nintendo or Sega? It's absurd. If you think those kind of things are okay I can only hope that viewpoint is the minority. You see when I grew up just because I used black and decker tools to make a chair I didn't send 75% of my profits to them for the opportunity.
|
United States47024 Posts
It shouldn't have any effect on already freely available mods. The new setup is specifically for those modders who 1) wish to actually make money off of their mods, and 2) wish to use Steam as a distribution platform.
The thing is, without this, there are very few developers who would be open to the idea of paid-for mods where they don't get a cut of the revenue to begin with. This is something that for the most part probably would not be possible at all without Valve acting as the middleman, because most devs/publishers probably wouldn't even bother to work out licensing on an individual basis with small-time modders, while at the same time being more than happy to file lawsuits and send C&D letters after the fact if one of them actually becomes successful.
On April 24 2015 08:09 Parnage wrote:
The alternative is what's to stop a mod maker to say fuck it and just toss up a donate button? Or a link to his own website that he can collect the revenue on and using the steam client as just a host.
And yeah good luck calling things illegal on the internet and trying to shut it down. Ask the MPAA how well that's worked out for them.
There have been many, many mods that have been shut down by C&Ds from the company who developed the original product--even for-free mods that devs felt infringed too far on their IP.
On April 24 2015 08:09 Parnage wrote:
How is valve jacking 75% of someone else's transformative work profit any different then some letsplayer or reviewer having his or her ad revenue hijacked by Nintendo or Sega? It's absurd. If you think those kind of things are okay I can only hope that viewpoint is the minority. You see when I grew up just because I used black and decker tools to make a chair I didn't send 75% of my profits to them for the opportunity.
Because copyright law as it applies to software is very different from how it applies to any other form of content creation at the moment, thanks to how blurred the line is between a derivative work and copyright infringement when software is involved.
|
On April 24 2015 08:09 TheYango wrote:It shouldn't have any effect on already freely available mods. The new setup is specifically for those modders who 1) wish to actually make money off of their mods, and 2) wish to use Steam as a distribution platform. The thing is, without this, there are very few developers who would be open to the idea of paid-for mods where they don't get a cut of the revenue to begin with. This is something that for the most part probably would not be possible at all without Valve acting as the middleman, because most devs/publishers probably wouldn't even bother to work out licensing on an individual basis with small-time modders, while at the same time being more than happy to file lawsuits and send C&D letters after the fact if one of them actually becomes successful. Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 08:09 Parnage wrote:
The alternative is what's to stop a mod maker to say fuck it and just toss up a donate button? Or a link to his own website that he can collect the revenue on and using the steam client as just a host.
And yeah good luck calling things illegal on the internet and trying to shut it down. Ask the MPAA how well that's worked out for them.
There have been many, many mods that have been shut down by C&Ds from the company who developed the original product--even for-free mods that devs felt infringed too far on their IP. Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 08:09 Parnage wrote:
How is valve jacking 75% of someone else's transformative work profit any different then some letsplayer or reviewer having his or her ad revenue hijacked by Nintendo or Sega? It's absurd. If you think those kind of things are okay I can only hope that viewpoint is the minority. You see when I grew up just because I used black and decker tools to make a chair I didn't send 75% of my profits to them for the opportunity.
Because copyright law as it applies to software is very different from how it applies to any other form of content creation at the moment, thanks to how blurred the line is between a derivative work and copyright infringement when software is involved.
+42
On April 24 2015 08:09 Parnage wrote:
The alternative is what's to stop a mod maker to say fuck it and just toss up a donate button? Or a link to his own website that he can collect the revenue on and using the steam client as just a host.
And yeah good luck calling things illegal on the internet and trying to shut it down. Ask the MPAA how well that's worked out for them.
How is valve jacking 75% of someone else's transformative work profit any different then some letsplayer or reviewer having his or her ad revenue hijacked by Nintendo or Sega? It's absurd. If you think those kind of things are okay I can only hope that viewpoint is the minority. You see when I grew up just because I used black and decker tools to make a chair I didn't send 75% of my profits to them for the opportunity.
Because you purchased those black and decker tools, which implies the use of those tools for both non-commercial and commercial means.
The world of copyright and IP law is significantly more difficult to navigate. You can use other people's IPs and copyrights only with a license or permission from the creator, unless it's something like Creative Commons or Public Domain. However, those are by request; in US copyright law, pictures, IP, etc. do not require a filing for something to be considered copyright, so, for instance, randomly taking pictures off google doesn't mean you're not potentially infringing on something.
Now, this generally won't matter if it's non-commercial and under fair use, which is what game mods traditionally fall under. However, once you introduce modders charging money, then the modder is explicitly making money off the IP of both the game developer and any other potential creative media that might inspire them, which COMPLETELY throws fair use out of the window.
Plus, you know, all games with modding capabilities usually has a TOS and EULA that guarantees the game devs can crack down on any mod or use of the game they don't like. Which isn't uncommon by itself. This again isn't part of copyright law per se, but generally is a waive of fair use in modding.
|
Copyright law being outdated is not much of an excuse that it is morally and ethically wrong to leave the creator a quarter of every dollar for something they made.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 24 2015 08:22 Parnage wrote:
Copyright law being outdated is not much of an excuse that it is morally and ethically wrong to leave the creator a quarter of every dollar for something they made.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
But you have to recognize that pretty much no developer or publisher would ever give you better than 40 cents on the dollar if you negotiated with them yourself (if that was even possible), AND force you to handle distribution on your own. Demonizing Valve for taking what's probably like 15 cents on the dollar AND handling distribution for you is the wrong place to direct your anger.
Your alternative of "put up a donation button and hope I don't get a C&D letter after I've spent several hundred hours developing this" isn't exactly compelling.
|
On April 24 2015 08:22 Parnage wrote:
Copyright law being outdated is not much of an excuse that it is morally and ethically wrong to leave the creator a quarter of every dollar for something they made.
No, because they're making money off someone else's work when they neither talked with, licensed, or compensated the game dev. Without that permission, they CANNOT charge, or really make money, for the mod, period, or it WILL get taken down. There is, at present, no alternates to charge for mods for most games, so Valve/the game devs they work with can scalp as much as they want.
Modding has only been allowed to largely grow for the vast majority of games because it's free-to-play and non-commercial.
In cases like DotA 2 or TF2, Valve has already monetized mods and allow the modders to make money provided Valve also gets a cut; there is already an implicit agreement here.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 24 2015 08:27 Lord Tolkien wrote:
In cases like DotA 2 or TF2, Valve has already monetized mods and allow the modders to make money provided Valve also gets a cut; there is already an implicit agreement here.
Those are a little different because in those cases, Valve outright hired the developers and just pays them as salaried employees now, IIRC.
|
On April 24 2015 08:22 Parnage wrote:
Copyright law being outdated is not much of an excuse that it is morally and ethically wrong to leave the creator a quarter of every dollar for something they made.
I think you'll find it very much true that the 25% kickback is worth far more for good/successful mods than a donation button on a website that gets a fraction of a percent of the views that the steam platform can deliver, especially when you factor in them officially spotlighting/featuring some of the better work. Steam is an incredibly powerful platform, and unlike the systems in place for TF2/Dota2/CSGO, Valve is not the developer now, so additional revenue will be taken to go to the actual dev of the game, along with their cut for using the Steam platform.
|
On April 24 2015 08:27 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 08:22 Parnage wrote:
Copyright law being outdated is not much of an excuse that it is morally and ethically wrong to leave the creator a quarter of every dollar for something they made.
No, because they're making money off someone else's work when they neither talked with, licensed, or compensated the game dev. Without that permission, they CANNOT charge money for the mod, period, or it WILL get taken down. There is, at present, no alternates to charge for mods for most games, so Valve/the game devs they work with can scalp as much as they want. Modding has only been allowed to largely grow for the vast majority of games because it's free-to-play and non-commercial. In cases like DotA 2 or TF2, Valve has already monetized mods and allow the modders to make money provided Valve also gets a cut; there is already an implicit agreement here.
If you look at ticket prices/pro player sets in dota 2, the really big tournaments only get 10-15% added, if they're really, really big, it's around 20%.
And those are all very successful tournaments, i.e. the Summit 1 (200-300% increase in prize money), TI4 (800% I think?), various Starladders. ESLs, etc. And pro players are even worse, they only get around .30 cents for each item bundle where those are 2.99 or 3.99 from Valve.
|
On April 24 2015 08:09 TheYango wrote:
It shouldn't have any effect on already freely available mods. The new setup is specifically for those modders who 1) wish to actually make money off of their mods, and 2) wish to use Steam as a distribution platform.
The thing is, without this, there are very few developers who would be open to the idea of paid-for mods where they don't get a cut of the revenue to begin with. This is something that for the most part probably would not be possible at all without Valve acting as the middleman, because most devs/publishers probably wouldn't even bother to work out licensing on an individual basis with small-time modders, while at the same time being more than happy to file lawsuits and send C&D letters after the fact if one of them actually becomes successful.
The "problem" is that earning money for mods was enough of gray idea/hassle that almost noone bothered with it. Now that it's more accessible, it's likely that majority of modders will throw more-or-less symbolic prices.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 24 2015 08:29 red_ wrote:
I think you'll find it very much true that the 25% kickback is worth far more for good/successful mods than a donation button on a website that gets a fraction of a percent of the views that the steam platform can deliver
It's actually probably more true for mediocre/unsuccessful mods. If your mod is not good enough to generate visibility on word-of-mouth alone, then the visibility you'd get from Steam is easily going to be orders of magnitude more than what you could get on your own.
On April 24 2015 08:32 Crusnik wrote:
If you look at ticket prices/pro player sets in dota 2, the really big tournaments only get 10-15% added, if they're really, really big, it's around 20%.
For one, the rate for tournament ticket sales to TOs is 25%, no more, no less.
Prize pool kickback is on top of that.
Second, tournament tickets are an awful example because they don't involve content creation. The "work" a TO does to get a tournament ticket for their tournament is filling out a form and submitting it to Valve. Literally all of the cost of what the ticket provides from there on out (DotA TV support) is handled by Valve, and the ticket sales are purely profit for the TO.
On April 24 2015 08:32 Crusnik wrote:
And those are all very successful tournaments, i.e. the Summit 1 (200-300% increase in prize money), TI4 (800% I think?), various Starladders. ESLs, etc. And pro players are even worse, they only get around .30 cents for each item bundle where those are 2.99 or 3.99 from Valve.
Pro players aren't the content creators. They contribute absolutely nothing to the creative process behind the item, and 10 cents on the dollar PURELY FOR YOUR NAME seems pretty generous to me.
On April 24 2015 08:33 AlterKot wrote:
The "problem" is that earning money for mods was enough of gray idea/hassle that almost noone bothered with it. Now that it's more accessible, it's likely that majority of modders will throw more-or-less symbolic prices.
I'm pretty sure that's precisely what the "you don't see any money unless your mod makes more than $100" is exactly supposed to combat.
|
Right I forgot, the dev's need more money after the person has already bought the game and the person who is using the mod has bought the game so obviously the creator of the mod should send the majority of the money to the developer(read: Publisher) because they need that cut for all the unpaid work they did on that particular mod.
I understand now guys, I should just give more money to use a 3rd party content after already paying for the game in the first place. Just so long as the majority of it goes for the dev's and not the person who made said content. And of course valve has to hold onto any sub 100$ profits because hey you didn't expect to get paid anyway right? Thank goodness you guys cleared that up for me. I understand now.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to break out the emergency booze so I can cope with the idea that people are okay with this absurdity.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 24 2015 08:47 Parnage wrote:
Right I forgot, the dev's need more money after the person has already bought the game and the person who is using the mod has bought the game so obviously the creator of the mod should send the majority of the money to the developer(read: Publisher) because they need that cut for all the unpaid work they did on that particular mod.
Nobody is saying that how the system works is morally/ethically ok. But this is how the system legally works, and complaining about something you have zero power to change is probably the least productive thing you can be doing with a Thursday evening. Even going into your emergency booze is more productive than that.
Copyright law as it applies to software is a very deep and complex legal problem, and there are a lot more outrageous abuses of it (e.g. patent trolls) than this. This is probably the mildest possible example you could find of how copyright law applied to software is "unfair".
On April 24 2015 08:47 Parnage wrote:
I understand now guys, I should just give more money to use a 3rd party content after already paying for the game in the first place. Just so long as the majority of it goes for the dev's and not the person who made said content. And of course valve has to hold onto any sub 100$ profits because hey you didn't expect to get paid anyway right? Thank goodness you guys cleared that up for me. I understand now.
Valve holding on to sub-$100 profits totally makes sense because otherwise people would charge for mods that should otherwise be free just to nickel-and-dime a few dollars off people.
The $100 limit ensures that a modder has to provide a product that is actually good enough to be worth money if they expect to make money. It's entirely to address the concern that AlterKot raised earlier.
|
Off this topic and onto WSJ chapters,
One Piece) hilariously powerful Luffy
Naruto: Seventh Hokage) cans o worms
Bleach) my new theory is that every that happened will just be retconned at the end because reasons.
One Punch Man) stupid short.
|
WSJ?
Wall Street Journal?
O_o
|
United States47024 Posts
I'm pretty sure he meant Weekly Shounen Jump from context, but I'm equally sure that Wall Street Journal comes to mind first from that acronym.
|
coulda been dyslexic for SJW's
|
i aint no okatu so i wasn't sure
The idea of the Wall Street Journal publishing anime articles was confusing and somewhat amusing.
|
Baa?21248 Posts
On April 24 2015 09:02 Lord Tolkien wrote:
i aint no okatu so i wasn't sure
The idea of the Wall Street Journal publishing anime articles was confusing and somewhat amusing.
![[image loading]](http://dbzu.3gkai.com/graphics/WSJ1.jpg)
|
Yeah the sub-$100 makes sense in the way that it will create a threshold - if you're not likely to make $100 then might as well release it for free instead of seeing whether you can make $10 or $20 from it.
Developer earning from the mods encourages him to make good modding tools and promote good content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
