807

Starfield players pirate the DLSS mod after the developer locks it behind paywall (www.gamescensor.com)

submitted 1 year ago by heimy@lemm.ee to c/games@lemmy.world

220 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 47 points 1 year ago

Out of this whole thing, I just want to say something about this.

Some players' reactions to the paywall have been unfavorable; they think that charging for mods is unethical and goes against the spirit of community modification

Everyone needs to make bread. Someone asking for money from their mod or map or whatever isn’t against any spirit. It’s just a human being asking to make bread. Now some don’t agree with the price tag and that’s fine.

But we all need to recognize humans asking for some dough for their hard work is in the spirit of existing. Some folk do it for free just for the feelings and we love ‘em for it. But those asking for some cash are no different.

This world is already full of dog eat dog. Let’s not hate on someone just trying to get through it. You don’t have to pay the ask, but let’s not go making enemies just cause we don’t agree on that number on the price tag.

[-] Mini_Moonpie@startrek.website 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I am not disagreeing with the premise that it's fair for someone to be paid for their work. However, during the Skyrim paid mod controversy (on Steam), I learned that there a lot of situations where having paid mods did hurt the modding community and created ethical concerns.

Mods were being stolen and sold by people that were not the actual mod authors.
Mods were being sold that depended on larger, more complicated mods to function, but the payment was not shared with the larger mod.
Mods that had multiple contributors were being sold by an individual who was not sharing the money with the other contributors.
Players were concerned about being asked to pay for bug fix mods when the developer should be fixing their own game. This is of course, was not the modders fault and does not mean their bug fix mod wasn't valuable or deserving of pay, but many felt the developer should pay for it, not users.

I would also point out that it wasn't just greedy players that complained about paid mods - a lot of modders thought it went against the spirit of modding because of how it harmed collaboration in the community. Suddenly, they couldn't trust that others would not steal their work or profit from it unfairly. And, that seems like a reasonable take to me, given all the abuses that modders claimed happened in the short time that paid modding was a thing for Skyrim on Steam.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

It feels like the issue is that it was offering the convenience of payment to mods, but not really thinking about the necessary friction of assuring licenses/legality/etc. All of that CAN, of course, be an issue for cheap Unity games too. I remember back when Steam Greenlight started, they required each game to donate $100 to charity to even be considered, basically placing a bet of assurance that it wasn't a stolen asset flip (I don't know if they still do that).

[-] Mini_Moonpie@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

I think you're exactly right - it is the combination of money + little oversight that is the big problem. Warframe seems to do a good job with tennogen but they limit it to only cosmetic mods and seem to be pretty restrictive about what they accept into their store. I don't see how you could have good oversight for a game with as many mods as something like Skyrim has.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's not "oversight", but if a modder needs to create their own storefront and Paypal integration, and advertising through word of mouth and their own social contacts (as in this case it seems), then that's going to offer a lot more scrutiny than a low-effort asset flipper presenting themselves anonymously through Steam's given storefront.