Paying money for mods

[Evul]

Speaking of logic, It seems you may be a tad drunk.

Dyslexia, autocorrect and a few drinks don't mix well.

[Shinzy]

Speaking of logic, It seems you may be a tad drunk.

Dyslexia, autocorrect and a few drinks don't mix well.

No, Evul, that.. that is the holy triangle
a match made in heaven, truly!

[Evul]

Speaking of logic, It seems you may be a tad drunk.

Dyslexia, autocorrect and a few drinks don't mix well.

No, Evul, that.. that is the holy triangle
a match made in heaven, truly!

+1

[Justin C]

I'm not opposed to paid mods, but I think a donation or "pay what you want" system would be ideal for mods.

Free or not, mods are a product and if a mod developer wants to charge for their product, that's their prerogative.

As long as there are game developers willing to allow modders to sell mods, eventually someone (preferably not Valve) is going to create a proper mod marketplace. People will whine as they always do whenever anything anywhere changes, and then they will use the marketplace anyway.

[Toggle]

Paying for mods is just a bad idea pretty much. Mods vary widely in how effective they how, how useful, and how worth it they actually are. Mods conflict with other mods, have no obligation really to be fixed if broken or they may even be fixes for the actual game. Mods are also of course modifications of the actual game, and a lot of times are more for convenience. Some mods actually extend games though, make them better or make them bigger. Some may be worth paying for, but in the end it's better to just donate to those mods then having paid mods an option.

[skullywag]

Does the developer get a say in if mods for his/her game are allowed to be monetized?

[Toggle]

Basically, if you posted the mod, it's as free to use for everyone else as it is for steam. Steam can take it without permission, sell it as DLC or part of an expansion or something like that. Once you post the mod, ye have no say in what happens anymore.

[Justin C]

Does the developer get a say in if mods for his/her game are allowed to be monetized?

Yes. Mods are a derivative work. In order to sell your mod you need to have permission from the owner of the original IP.

Basically, if you posted the mod, it's as free to use for everyone else as it is for steam. Steam can take it without permission, sell it as DLC or part of an expansion or something like that. Once you post the mod, ye have no say in what happens anymore.

Even if that's true in the Steam Workshop (I have no idea), it isn't true anywhere the mod developer doesn't give explicit permission to use their mod. A mod developer automatically owns the IP of all of the original parts of their mod, which is why Tynan requests that all mod developers include some kind of license so that people understand if and how they are allowed to use the mod in other works.

Paying for mods is just a bad idea pretty much. Mods vary widely in how effective they how, how useful, and how worth it they actually are. Mods conflict with other mods, have no obligation really to be fixed if broken or they may even be fixes for the actual game. Mods are also of course modifications of the actual game, and a lot of times are more for convenience. Some mods actually extend games though, make them better or make them bigger. Some may be worth paying for, but in the end it's better to just donate to those mods then having paid mods an option.

There is nothing that can be said about mods that cannot also be said about games. If you were one of the unfortunate ones who bought Towns or The War Z, you know that game developers can screw you over in all of the same ways that mod developers can. There are no problems inherent in a mod marketplace that aren't also inherent in every other marketplace.

[blaze7736]

Just had to laugh at this "Dyslexia, autocorrect and a few drinks don't mix well" it seams to be a bain of so many modders me included

[Adamiks]

Selling mods is as if Tynan would sell items like sniper rifle for Rimworld. Without Rimworld mods for Rimworld are just files.

[BetaSpectre]

Paying for a mod that was intended to be like a DLC makes sense.
Paying for a bug fix or feature change not so much, especially when 90% of mods conflict or may have to be swapped around.

Mods should only cost money if the owner intended it to be like a huge DLC package IMO like if we had Z levels and a Rimworld Campaign. With the consent of all parties involved.

The idea of letting authors sell mods for money does make sense and shouldn't be stopped IMO, and I'd prefer mods to be allowed to be released instead of stopped for copy right issues. However, if anything more copy right issues seem to pop up when money gets involved.

Still I'm not buying a mod that's not officially sponsored by Bethesda or any big hats. Due to the fact when I mod a game with lots of mods and there's a conflict I have to pick and choose what to keep and what to toss out. If I payed for all the mods I'd be losing out. Then the game might be updated rendering all the mods worthless.

[akiceabear]

I personally prefer the Patreon approach to supporting modders whose work is substantial.

But I'd happily fork over $10 for a fog of war mode (hint hint)

[Toggle]

Oh, this is also about Rimworld. This entire thread was kind of confusing, I thought it was exclusively about steam mods.

[Anduin1357]

Case study: Would you pay for Project Armory?

[Adamiks]

Case study: Would you pay for Project Armory?

No.