246
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2026
246 points (98.0% liked)
PC Gaming
13878 readers
728 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't understand this at all.
rockstar did the same thing to the VR mods that were made for GTA games.
the guys are developing mods that are going to make me want to purchase and play the game. why is that a problem?
I don't understand intellectual property
In this case it's cause the modder is charging money for the mod, I think CD Project Red even offered to allow it to exist if he stopped charging before this, so I would argue this is on the modder
I don't understand what difference it makes to CDPR. if the guy makes a few bucks developing mods for the game, then he can spend more of his time developing the mod, and making mods for other games. right? in what way is it harming CDPR
He always had the option of using a donate option instead of locking it behind a paywall. CDPR tried getting him to go that route and he basically told them to pound sand so here we are.
Property rights get all sorts of goofy when money is involved. If homey had released the mod for free and just had a patreon or whatev on the side, no one would care, but because he was charging for it, CDPR is obigated to vigorously defend their copyright.
There's a legal aspect where if you don't defend your intellectual property you may lose it.
You also don't want to set a precedent because if you let some rando do it, why not let a company do it? Why not let Google do it?
Modding implies toying with someone's IP, and the basic premise is that you can't paywall the resulting product. There's a lot of leeway and you can ask for donations, offer private beta to your patrons etc... it can definitely be cash-flow positive but a straight up paywall is a violation of the social contract that governs the modding scene.
Another day, another instance of someone confusing copyright with trademarks.
i was gonna ask for clarification cause the subject genuinely interests me but that Lemmy snark is so fucking boring, what a conversation killer
Bit petty to point that out since it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.