206
Modder claims Star Wars: Battlefront Classic Collection used their work without permission
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
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 17 Mar 2024
206 points (98.1% liked)
PC Gaming
10869 readers
271 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
There's a difference between improving upon other people's work for free, and taking said improvements and selling them on as your own work.
Mods are not always improvements, but they are always using someone else’s work for free.
If no one is asking you to improve upon other people’s work you have no legal right to do so.
I also agree that they shouldn’t be using the modder’s work without compensation.
I support modding, just be real about it.
“Be real” how? I’m legit confused what point you are making. “Using someone’s work for free” doesn’t mean the same as “taking someone’s work and selling it as your own.” When you buy a shirt, you can put your own art on it, but if the shirt company uses your design without credit or consent to sell more shirts, that’s a bit sketchy, no?
I’m gonna “be real” with you, it doesn’t sound like you support modding at all
Incredible analogy, makes things very clear
Explain this insanity
You think someone should have to pay to modify the files of a game on their hard drive?
Actually let's back up. What do you think "modding" means?
Nope. I know that the modders didn’t do the original work, that’s why it’s called modding.
Most companies don’t support this practice.
Yes, you can do whatever you want with files on your hard drive, but you’re still modding someone else’s work.
That’s all I’m saying. Everyone is griping that the company used the modder’s work without permission, when the modder did the exact same thing: using someone else’s work without permission.
I’m not saying modding is morally wrong - I’m something of a mod enjoyer myself XD - and I agree it’s a dick move to swipe a modder’s work, but I doubt there’s a legal leg to stand on when their work is based on an IP they don’t own.
I do also understand the difference between small modders doing something for fun based on something they love instead of money and a company swiping someone’s work for profit.
But it’s right there in the name. Modding. What are you modding? Someone else’s work.
But there is no claim to the original work. They only claim to have made what they made.
And, more importantly, they only release what they made.
This is why I asked you what you think modding is. Because modding is not "releasing a modified game". Modding is releasing a modification to a game. This is a fundamental difference you do not seem to understand.
[citation needed]
[definition of 'support' needed]
Those that literally don't support mods, as in, block the possibility and disavow it publicly, do so because they make the same mistake you do: thinking that modders release modified games.
Yes. So?
They did not do the exact same thing. If modders "did the exact same thing", that would mean releasing the games with their modifications.
But they don't do that.
They only release their mods. Which can only be enjoyed with an actual copy of the game. Which, I will remind you - the modders do not provide.
You're certainly implying it.
Then you really should understand that modders don't release modified games.
That really depends on the mod. A mod extending animation capabilities is not based on anyone else's work but their own. This type of work is generally game agnostic, but is tailored to fit the game for that implementation.
The vast majority of modding is actual game development work that has been tailored to extend an existing game.
You don't demonstrate any understanding of this fact whatsoever.
Yes. Modding. Not flipping - which is what you're accusing them of.
If you had permission and they were paying you to do it, you would be a game developer, not a modder. You would be updating the game, not modding it.
And yes, I know some companies are cool with mods and grant permission and even provide tools, which is awesome.
I made no comments on the distribution of mods, only the creation.
You are entirely missing the point, mate. Creating skeletal animations is game dev work. I didn't say they were working for the company!
A modder's work is the mod, not the modified game. And a company releasing someone else's work is not "the exact same" as a modder adding to the game.
Right. A modder’s work is useless without the game because it modifies someone else’s work.
A modder takes someone else’s work and modifies it for their own purposes. Here, a company took a modder’s work, which was based off their own work, and used it for their own purposes.
Should they be paid for it? Yes, I think so. Will they? I dunno, sounds like they removed it pretty quick.
The only point I’m trying to make is that they both used someone else’s work without permission. (I’m assuming the modder didn’t have permission because it’s EA)
You are continuing to perpetuate the misunderstanding that the modder releases a modified game, rather than just a mod.
That’s up for a judge to decide.
It doesn't even need to come to that - it is plain as day your legal right to modify files on your computer
True
GTFO, child.