STEAMing Pile...

Discussion in 'PC Gaming' started by Grall, Apr 23, 2015.

  1. aaronspink

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    64
    This is merely a right to distribute, nothing more nothing else. The derived work is the packaged product sold by steam. This is quite literally the EXACT SAME THING that any other developer signs with Valve, from EA to Rockstar. Its basically what's required by any digital distribution contract offering content for sale. Its what allows them to ensure continuing availability for purchased content.





    Actually, its quite generous within the media industry to the developer. In the area of derived content, most developers/writers are lucky to get 5-10%. While these numbers may seem bad, the 25% is actually quite excellent within the overall media industry.
     
  2. Arwin

    Arwin Now Officially a Top 10 Poster
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    18,535
    Likes Received:
    2,281
    Location:
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Lightman likes this.
  3. Rodéric

    Rodéric a.k.a. Ingenu
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    4,079
    Likes Received:
    995
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    The idea was sound, threre's no reason people shouldn't get paid for their work.
    If people want free mods, they can make them themselves :p
     
  4. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,502
    Likes Received:
    4,905
    except devs get paid a wage while they are developing
     
    #104 Davros, Apr 28, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
    BRiT likes this.
  5. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,889
    Likes Received:
    7,892
    While I do agree that there's a place for paid mods in the PC scene, I don't agree with the general "people should always get paid for any kind of work anywhere" idea.

    What would happen to Wikipedia if they decided to give money in exchange for edits and/or article entries?
    If you think it'd level up the quality of contributions in the wiki, you're probably wrong.
    It would destroy the website overnight, with the massive amount of (even more) non-factual entries and utter crap edits that opportunists would submit to it.




    And pay deductible taxes, social security, health insurance and in many countries it would contribute to their pensions as that's enforced by law.
     
    BRiT likes this.
  6. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,343
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    "Valve is the sole owner of the derivative works created by Valve from your Content"

    This is not at all equal to "losing legal ownership of any assets present in the mods" and it certainly does not prevent anyone from reusing their assets wherever they wish.
     
  7. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,889
    Likes Received:
    7,892
    Why is everyone forgetting the second part of the sentence, and why not underline the rest of the first part?
    "Valve is the sole owner of the derivative works created by Valve from your Content and is therefore entitled to grant licenses on these derivative works."

    The way I see it, they can take your texture, change a pixel's value and claim it as their own.
    Regardless, why that answer from Valve's lawyer when the modder tried to take the mod away from the Workshop?
     
  8. Arwin

    Arwin Now Officially a Top 10 Poster
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    18,535
    Likes Received:
    2,281
    Location:
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Of course there's a place for modding and there's nothing wrong with making money off it either, but the way the modding community currently works, means you can't transition into a paid model overnight. I think if they want to do this, they will have to limit it to new games initially. Existing games have a lot of content that builds off of the work of other people, and in many cases there's no clear ownership of property that has so far been free and now becomes paid. It gets complicated very quickly.

    A fresh start with a new game can explore this model better, and see whether it can work.
     
    ToTTenTranz likes this.
  9. aaronspink

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    64
    only if they get an advance, else the standard royalty rates for derivative media is in the 5-10% range.
     
  10. aaronspink

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    64
    Um, because as stated multiple times, that's the language required in order for valve to ever be able to distribute the content. Its literally somewhere in every contract for everything distributed on Steam, or Google Play, or itunes/app store. AKA it is the right of distribution.

    The modder was trying to remove the content completely from steam. Steam was perfectly willing and did make new purchases disabled for that mod, but they won't remove something completely that they've sold. That in effect would require them to revoke sold content from users. AKA, what the modder wanted would of required steam to violate their contract with users who had already purchased the mod.
     
  11. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,502
    Likes Received:
    4,905
    Valve are fine with that
     
    BRiT likes this.
  12. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,343
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    Because I was specifically responding to the claim that devs would be "losing legal ownership of any assets present in the mods", when in fact they retain the rights to their assets.
     
  13. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    What defines a derived work in this context?

    Does it mean: we can package it in ways we want it. Similar to Amazon being allowed to sell a book either in paper or electronic form.
    Or does it mean: we can do anything we please, as in the example of Totz, where Valve can rip the thing apart, reuse it in their own games etc.

    If, as you claim, they only meant the right to redistribute it, then the language certainly isn't clear about that. And they never made that clear to their non-lawyer audience. And if they didn't intend it to be the second interpretation, they were stupid to assume that everyone would have the legal chops to understand it correctly. (I certainly don't have those skills.)
     
    BRiT likes this.
  14. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,889
    Likes Received:
    7,892
    You'll see this corporate lawyerism everywhere.
    They make it vague so that the optimists and innocent assume they're somehow protected and lower their guard. Once things get ugly (as seen from the fishing mod case), the lawyers get in and subdue everyone with "it's obvious to me that this turns in our favor" statements. Only those with the time/money to get themselves other lawyers will be able to counterattack... which isn't a lot of people.
     
  15. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,502
    Likes Received:
    4,905
    I think that is their plan, I don't think they've abandoned the idea of paid mods they are just waiting for a new game to be released with no existing community

     
  16. steveOrino

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    242
    Apparently not, judging by the community response.

    It has yet to be been explained as to why a vibrant growing community of content creators operating without issue for well over a decade suddenly should be compensated for their hobby as if they were somehow slaves forced to work on mods against their will during their free time. Like I have previously stated, after Bethesda's last patch back in 2013 both the game's binary and Creation Kit were left dead to rights, bugs, limitations and all. It has been up to the community out of their own free time and will to create the tools and frameworks necessary to extend modding beyond Bethesda's software bugs and limitations. These efforts have continued to keep the game popular and selling LONG past its release date, for Skyrim and previous titles (The game's Director has said as much time and time again). The FREE sharing of resources, time and ideas are the foundation that has allowed the community to continue to be prosperous more than any modding community ever before it.

    Where is the proof that all of a sudden walled off paid mods for the TES games suddenly become better than the free counterparts? Better for whom? Smaller mods? That was debunked. Bigger Expansion sized mods? The biggest TES/Fallout content creators from SureAI have stated that mods for money doesn't help them. Since paid workshop mods would be cut off from most if not all community resource/tools/frameworks because of DMCA reasons, anything other than quick ROI mods would be profitable @ 25%.

    This (admitted) half assed attempt at curating has done jack shit for anyone other than cause a rift in the community and instill fear and doubt. The NDA and behind the scenes bullshit absolutely reeks of rent-seeking from the corporate parties involved and if that sounds harsh then why couldn't they have asked the community for feedback first to avoid this PR blunder? I personally think the answer to that is pretty clear.


    From a well known and now less liked modder Arthmoor after the deletion of the workshop:
    Now, whether the huge group of modders and mod users against this were just a "bunch of trolls" is a matter of opinion.... I guess :roll:
     
    ToTTenTranz likes this.
  17. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,502
    Likes Received:
    4,905
    we heard the same thing when the horse armour came out
    pre-order bonuses same again
    vendor specific bonus content
    micro transactions in full price games
    all of these things made gaming worse
     
    ToTTenTranz and BRiT like this.
  18. Scott_Arm

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    14,945
    Likes Received:
    7,263
    Just heard about this story. Only exception I take is how much of a cut Valve was taking. Modders should be able to charge for their work. If you make a quality mod and want to charge $20 for it, good on you if people will pay for it. If you want to make a mod that's simple and think people will pay $1 for it, then great. If anything, it will lead to more and higher-quality mods. THey just need to get the revenue sharing right.
     
  19. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,502
    Likes Received:
    4,905
    I think it's more about the cut Bethesda are taking
     
    Malo and BRiT like this.
  20. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    18,618
    Likes Received:
    9,149
    And you keep missing the point. They HAVE to do that to legally continue to provide users with the content they already purchased.

    Just because a mod author or game maker wants their mod/game removed from Steam for sale, Valve MUST retain the legal right to continue to provide that game to current owners of the game.

    Without that wording, when a mod author/developer/publisher removes their game from Steam, Valve would also be legally required to remove it from the library of all owners of that game as the game is being provided to them through the Steam service.

    I'm fairly sure people would have been quite angry with Valve had they removed Crysis 2 from everyone's libraries when EA had Steam remove Crysis 2 from Steam, for example. Yes, Crysis 2 is again available from Steam, but there was a period of time when Steam was forced to remove it from Steam by order of EA.

    There are lots more examples of games that people own but are no longer available on Steam. Without the legal protection that you quoted, Steam would have had to remove those from people's Steam Library.

    It's quite likely all other online stores have similar verbiage. Otherwise if a developer/publisher removed their game from the storefront the store would no longer be able to legally allow the download of that game by people who own the game. So, for example, GoG doesn't have DRM. You can download the game and play it forever. But you can always redownload the game (I'm assuming) if you deleted it or otherwise lost it. Without similar legal verbiage to what you quoted from Steam, that would no longer be possible of a deveoper/publisher removed their game from GoG. If you lose or deleted your game. Tough shit, you can't download it again from the place you purchased it because they have no rights to the game in any form, without that legal protection.

    Regards,
    SB
     
    #120 Silent_Buddha, Apr 28, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
    Lightman likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...