An axiom is an internally self-defining truth that requires no external proof to be evident. Mods, or independent content created to enhance the content available to licensed IPs owned by a third party are NOT by definition free. That this discussion is happening is proof of the contrary. Just because something has been free for the last 15 years doesn't mean that has to be the case 5 years from now. Anyone who has been in the evolving market that is the tech industry for the last 40 years should know that.



Why is monetizing your own labor money grubbing? Why should people work for free? To quote Frogboy from another thread:






And the console-using slime are utterly dominating the industry, leading some people to wonder where the money for PC games is going to come from in the future. I personally think PC gaming will survive... but only once people figure out a way to make money consistently with the realities of the market. Perhaps the solution is revenue streams through mods.

Sure, right now SOME money can be made by developing PC games, although it remains a gamble. MORE of a gamble than developing for the console according to many industry perspectives. Sure, right now people volunteer their labor through modding to make additional content for their favorite games. Will that continue forever, though?

Perhaps. Are you a betting man?

~ Wyndstar

The modding community isn't quite so unselfish as you think. They get online 'cred', appreciation, a community, a hobby and for some of them, a job in the gaming industry. Yes, gamers get these mods for free, but it's only free of charge. To some extent, it's like giving out samples. Samples are free, but there are other motives.

When a developing house releases mods, expansions, etc. the primary motivation is money. They already have the fans, online 'cred', community, etc. They are trying to support their job, company, family and future development efforts.

I have no problem with micropayments. Heck, in other games, people pay a lot of money for a new outfit, a new icon next to their player name, new hairstyle, etc.

Mass Effect and many other games on Xbox Live do sell worthwhile mini expansions and additional content. It's not all cosmetic like the 'horse armor' example. Guitar Hero and Rock Band basically have a huge revenue stream from micropayments.

The problem is this: what's the difference between a "Mod" and Dark Avatar?

Many of Dark Avatar's changes could have been done on the original engine. After all, the only change a few core mechanics (spying being one of them); everything else was defined by a small set of XML files. A Modder could "very easily" (easy in the sense that they had access to the same tools) have created much of DA.

Yet it's very difficult to say that DA isn't a significant change to the game. Some people still play DL because they don't like certain DA changes. But the changes were done in significant part with what are effectively modding tools.

So which is Dark Avatar? An expansion or a mod? How do you draw the line between expansion and mod?

The problem with the Horse Armor issue isn't that they were selling it. It's that it isn't worth paying for; it was clearly a sleazy attempt to extort money from people. Compare this to Rock Band, where they sell something that is actually worth paying money for. That's a fair exchange of money and product.

Providing a reviewing and publishing system for mods would be an interesting mechanic. One of the main problem with mods is that, well, it's pot-luck. Most people aren't good game designers; they're not even halfway decent at it. So most mods are crap. Having a centralized house for the best mods, where the makers of those mods get a percentage of the sales, would be a pretty reasonable idea.

The most important thing it does is that it encourages the hobbiest game designer to develop his/her skills. It gives them some material reward for their efforts, and thus encourages them to continue.

Here's the thing. I have a solid source of revenue and few expenses, but I'm not a retard with my money. Most people ARE retards with their money, however, and that's why like 70% of Americans are in debt.

Rock Band and Guitar Hero's tracks were extortion as well. I can't nail the exact price, but I believe they were as much a 'value' as $2 per track. I, and many others, find that ridiculously overpriced - that's more than a song costs on ITUNES. That makes NO sense at all.

I'm with you on the 'fair value' bit, but the fact is, the people who can identify a fair value are a minority to the morons who have Mom's credit card. In the end, those of us who find Horse Armor a rip off aren't going to have anything, because everyone's too busy buying new guns for $8 apiece.

Horse Armor and other ripoffs shouldn't be popular, but they are, and they will continue to be.

Why are you constantly and endlessly harping about Horse Armor? My guess is that you bought it and were disappointed by the purchase. So now you decide to 'fight back' against the concept of micropayments?

Give me a break. There are bad deals everywhere. Just go to the local mall, supermarket, street corner, 7-11...everywhere. Just because you bought the Horse Armor and was unhappy doesn't automatically mean that every micropayment is a bad deal.

What do you use to gauge whether something is a good deal anyways? For something like a game, let's look at the cost per hour of entertainment. Games are an incredibly cheap way to entertain yourself. The Guitar Hero tracks are expensive for some people, but people who love Guitar Hero will play it over and over and over again. The same could easily be said for a mod, expansion or miniexpansion to this game.

Seriously, after playing a single game of GalCiv, I can already justify the cost.

Good job completely avoiding, ignoring, and/or utterly failing to even pretend you were able to grasp a single iota of the point.

I have history backing up my point - you have nothing but blissful ignorance and some surreal idea that putting a dollar sign on everything is nothing but good news.

You seem so fixated on the bad examples, that you fail to see the positives.

History does not back up your point. You just conveniently picked some examples and skewed it with your angry, bitter viewpoint. There are plenty of cases where history proves you completely wrong.

In any case, the gaming industry is still developing and constantly changing. Something that didn't work in the past could work very well in the future, and vice versa. History is not a good argument because just how far back does it go when it pertains to this topic?

I don't know why every single post of yours sounds so bitter and/or inflammatory. I think it's probably better if I let you rant and I'll stick to my own arguments.

Actually, it makes plenty of sense.

A track in a game like Rock Band or Guitar Hero isn't just an MP3 file. You have to separate the instruments, so that the instrument plays or fails to do so based on your actions. Which often means that the song must be re-recorded. That is, they have to hire a band to play the song with specialized recording equipment again. They then must pay that band, the actual band who did the original song (who almost certainly aren't the ones making the re-recording), and the studio holding the copyright of the music itself.

So yes, it makes sense that it costs more for one of those tracks. Because they're interactive, and therefore do more than a flat MP3 file.



Capitalism clearly states that "fair value" is what people are willing to pay. It is what the market will bear. In case you didn't notice, the horse armor thing failed. It didn't sell well. The market did not bear it. Ergo, it was not "fair value".

Compare that to Rock Band or GH tracks. The market seems willing to buy them, so they are "fair value".



Not everyone will think that the market-borne "fair value" is fair. That's OK; you don't have to buy it. You can watch the rest of us getting more content for a price that we consider fair.

I don't see "fair value" in luxury cars, but then, I'm not complaining that they exist either.

This is going to sound weird, but I don't care in the least if a publisher/developer/whatever makes any and every attempt possible to make money. While the gaming industry is huge, it's extremely tough. You see good development houses going under all the time and developers work some ridiculous hours. If selling subpar additional content can garner a little more money to fund their development efforts, that's fine with me.

It always amazed me that people have a huge issue with ingame advertising, especially when it is completely innocuous and avoidable. If you love the game and want to support the team that created it, you should be happy that they are getting more money.

Creating a great modding community is a huge deal in the PC world, no doubt about it. It is a long term investment and very much a way to get loyal fans and a good reputation. Games that provide good modding tools usually have a longevity far beyond that of other games. But at the same time, there does have to be a distinction between official content and content created by the fans. The fans are willing to give their time and effort to create content that is free for the masses. For the developers, it costs money to create additional content. Usually, official content is better, more comprehensive, more polished, and better supported. That all costs money.

If Stardock is willing to devote some of their resources to continually improving this game, especially during the dry patch while we wait for their next release, I'll be happy to support their efforts.

Very late to this party.

From a commercial point of view, stardock needs to at least cover the cost of all the development on an ongoing basis. A subscrption model (or fixed annual fee) would offer guaranteed money up front and allow development to be planned accordingly.

I'm sure the community can offer much in the way of graphics/ideas/testing, maybe a roadmap to refactor code such that it allows the community to develop new features.

I'm sure there are many hardcore gamers out there that would sign up now, I'm one of em.

If all else fails then some/all of the source could be made available under some kind of public licence. I'm sure restrictions can be placed on it so that you'd have to a least paid for TotA before any subsequent modded version will run.

Would be a shame to let it die, saying that GC3 would be out b4 I get bored of GC2. Maybe that's where the focus should be....on GC3

Some excellent posts save me the bother of responding point by point! I'm glad to see Uranium's opinion might be common, but is nowhere near universal.

I feel/hope it's only a matter of time until a company tries to make money more directly out of the community's modding skills. There's nothing sinister or dangerous about that - it's entirely possible to generate money by enhancing *everybody's* situation after all.

The biggest difficulty in monetizing modding is this.

A modder typically releases several versions of the mod. The initial versions are various incomplete or beta releases. The final version is the one that is mostly bug-free and ready to go.

However, if the method of monetization is that you look on the internet and see which mods are good and then try to sell them, how do you do that? I mean, the mod's already out there. Even if you caught it before the final release, the betas are still out there. If the differences between the beta and the final release are small, end-users can simply patch the mod using the modding tools.

There's also the weird notion about something being free for a while, then a changed version of it costs money.

I rather liked the "mini-expansion" system used by Bethesda Softworks for Oblivion. The content was all stand-alone--meaning you didn't need one to use another--small, and relatively inexpensive. I obviously don't have insight into the financials, but I would think this would be a good way to pay for light development work (I know, I know...the real cost is in testing, not in building).

You could possibly even use the built-in mod functionality and sell them as lightweight, standalone mods.