I'm not really to to date with the situation, but just because something is written in an EULA doesn't mean it's legally enforceable? You might even argue that the modder isn't an end user in this case and as such, the EULA doesn't apply.

As long as no copyrighted work is distributed, what is the angle? I just assume that the mod did include copyrighted material, but what if it was purely a patch?

I agree that it isn't just passion, it is his full time job. He clearly has passion for it too, but you can't make a mod suite this insane on passion alone. This is years of consistent 100 hour work weeks. All dedicated to making these VR mods better than any VR port, or even "built for VR first" games.

And he drops support for the game as soon as asked. Which requires shutting down for a week to disentangle anything related to the one game specifically from the rest of the suite. I can't say he didn't complain, but not about the work, just that it didn't have to go this route, but it did go this route, so he does what he has to.

While the mod is behind payment, the payment is for his work and dedication. If he had to subsist on donations, he wouldn't be able to put 100 hours a week into it, he would need a job.

Again, the games are fully in their right to pull out, but they also admit that all he would need is their permission, they could choose to go that route, most do.

Given that, I’m okay with this DCMA.

Just a small detail that doesn't look considered, if you ear only one side of the story. The "Cyberpunk VR” mod is not actually a "Cyberpunk VR” mod, but a framework that came to support Cyberpunk after many other games (like GTAV). If you're still okey, bear in mind the same logic may apply to Loseless Scaling (sold for ~7€ on Steam) and 3DSen (sold for ~13€ on Steam) or you need to take VR Injection Framework apart from Loseless Scaling and 3DSen.

Tell that to Bethesda.

I dream of a world where people can follow their passion without having to worry about where their next meal will come from.

Team Fortress was a mod. Counterstrike was a mod. DotA was a mod. Really depends on what they can do with dedicated effort rather than just simply a passion project.

VR mods, they aren't really worth it IMO, I even resent the game devs who charge for separate VR releases that they usually don't even end up maintaining across different VR hardware. IMO the problem with VR is that people try to do too much with it and try to Wii-ficy the experience, and this is at the hardware level given how usually you can't even use your keyboard and mouse, having to resort to the VR controllers they came with for a much slower and less fluid experience.

I don't know where are you getting the "have always been ... and have always been paid for with donations" thing from.

IMHO, its a "recent" thing, folks were doing mods/indie games without getting paid before Patreon/ko-fi/etc. existed. I remember the times when ModDB and IndieDB were popular and so many games in there were completely free. Then Steam Greenlight happened and now everything is early access paid game. Also game demos died.

About the mod slop, its already happening for example in the Minecraft modding, they're filled (mod listing pages and even some mods themselves) with ads, paid access or forcing you to join the discord.

Personally, I don't see how this guy's project hurt them in any way, even if he was making money from it. That's assuming each copy involved a purchase from them (and if not, that would resolve it IMO).

I disagree with the hate paid mods get, at least in the current economic model. Though even if there was a UBI, I think worthwhile work should be rewarded.

I don’t understand how this is legal action?

Well just the use of the trademark would probably be enough to file a DMCA takedown. But beyond that modding the game entails using its modding tools, which have an EULA, which stipulates no paywalls for mods.

Technically the modder has legal recourse, they could argue fair use and file a counter-notice. Then CDPR would have to sue in front of a court. But given the financial and legal risks it seems unlikely a counter-notice will happen.

Honestly the only real chance is to come to some kind of agreement with CDPR, which they seemed to heavily telegraph is possible in their public message ("we never allow monetization of our IP without our direct permission and/or an agreement in place").

DMCA notices are just a strongly letter from an attorney, that they record sending to you for when they really sue you should they choose to do that

Software DRM legal threats preceded DMCA takedowns, but DMCA takedowns make them easier to execute.

...you are aware of the perverse incentives that kind of system would bring right?

"Here's alpha 0.01. It gets to the title screen."

"If you donate here's version 2.00 to download with experimental (wink) features such as actual playthrough complete testing."