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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.