Will KSP mods ever turn Paid?

[DMagic]

Because you are paying the game developer and Steam to develop DLC that you have to support for their game while having to invest more time to keep up the standard of quality and support that people will expect from a product they actually invested money in.

Really? That's not what I paid Squad for. I paid for the game as it was, not for some future developments. Sure there is some expectation of support, but there is no requirement for it.

And this totally ignores half of the question. Paying for the game has nothing to do with Twitch streamers or YouTube video makers getting money, sometimes as a direct consequence of using or featuring mods. Do you have an answer for why they should earn money, but not others?

[3Dave]

That's a rather pessimistic generalization. Is this based on fact or assumption?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Browser games are dumped on the market by the hundreds by companies that really don't give a damn about the game quality as long as they make money. Their model is to profit off the fact that people with real cash will massage their egos and pay to win. In KSP, there is no 'winning.'

And if you feel people don't need to be paid for their creative efforts then I challenge you to go into your job tomorrow and tell your boss you want a pay cut; That you'll work there just because you love the job.

Yes, dumped on the market the same as worthless mods will be dumped on the market just to cash in.

The issue I have with it is more or less the same as fanfiction writers trying to publish their "work". yes, its creative, and yes, its difficult. but no where NEAR as difficult as creating the base product. All a mod is, is an extra script/model using the established accessible interfaces of the parent program. Its basically game development practice. If you want to get paid for it, grab unity or cryengine and start creating your own new product.

[Fengist]

Because you are paying the game developer and Steam to develop DLC that you have to support for their game while having to invest more time to keep up the standard of quality and support that people will expect from a product they actually invested money in.

Ok, then you're saying mod developers don't invest time or maintain a standard of quality people expect and therefore it's perfectly acceptable to you to expect these non-quality mod developers to just keep doing what they do for free while everyone else profits off their work. And I think you're saying that Squad should be the only ones making DLC for KSP because what they do will be quality vs what the mod developers do being non-quality.

If that's the case, then Squad should completely disable the ability for mods to be made and just issue their own 'quality' DLC. BTW, it's taken Squad 4 years just to create a public non-beta/alpha release. How long would you have waited for Squad to create their own DLC? Would KSP still be installed on your hard drive without these mods and the community they built?

And I have no clue where you got the idea that Steam develops DLC for KSP. Valve is a game company, but Steam is a parasite created by Valve. Yes, I use Steam because I like not having all these boxes and CD's lying around and my games are archived for me. But Steam makes money by selling what others create. Valve makes their own games, not DLC for others.

[AlphaAsh]

but no where NEAR as difficult as creating the base product. All a mod is, is an extra script/model using the established accessible interfaces of the parent program. Its basically game development practice...

I am clearly modding wrong then. Chap, I have been and continue to be a professional games developer. The perpetuation of this myth is one of the largest problems that makes it so difficult to get paid as an independent games developer. Go work for Bioware or MS Games for a bit, then do some modding please. I'm so bored of reading this crap.

[Fengist]

Yes, dumped on the market the same as worthless mods will be dumped on the market just to cash in.

Really? You think mod developers will suddenly see KSP as such a huge cash cow that they'll just create any mod that makes money? Seriously? Now I know, you are assuming and have no proof.

The issue I have with it is more or less the same as fanfiction writers trying to publish their "work". yes, its creative, and yes, its difficult. but no where NEAR as difficult as creating the base product. All a mod is, is an extra script/model using the established accessible interfaces of the parent program. Its basically game development practice. If you want to get paid for it, grab unity or cryengine and start creating your own new product.

Well thank God the rest of the world doesn't see it this way. Imagine if you had a flat tire on your car and was told that nobody can make tires except the manufacturer because they'd just be using the car someone else built to leech money. All a tire is, is extra rubber using established wheels of the car manufacturer. Making a tire is nowhere NEAR as difficult as making a car, go build your own tire factory.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Fengist

[Randazzo]

You can't get paid for derivative work without the original authors getting paid too, and with their permission. End of story, no amount of density will change that.

[3Dave]

Really? You think mod developers will suddenly see KSP as such a huge cash cow that they'll just create any mod that makes money? Seriously? Now I know, you are assuming and have no proof.

Well thank God the rest of the world doesn't see it this way. Imagine if you had a flat tire on your car and was told that nobody can make tires except the manufacturer because they'd just be using the car someone else built to leech money. All a tire is, is extra rubber using established wheels of the car manufacturer. Making a tire is nowhere NEAR as difficult as making a car, go start your own tire factory.

The OEM buys tires from the tire factory to start with, so there goes your analogy. and wheel sizes are standardized, think of them like the programming language.

You could have brought up aftermarket car parts, to be more accurate. but w/e.

As long as the developer gets a cut, its fine. My fear is that it will lead to stagnation in the variety of mods being produced. Once it becomes a "for profit" thing, non-profitable mods will be abandoned in favor of what ever sells. Thats simple economics. Of course some mod makers will stay true to their roots and not want to complicate things dealing with paying royalites to every other mod producer whos code they used etc. So i guess its just wait and see if this is really the end of PC gaming as we know it or not.

[Fengist]

You can't get paid for derivative work without the original authors getting paid too, and with their permission. End of story, no amount of density will change that.

You are partially correct. Original authors should get paid. The question is, should only the original authors get paid or should those who make derivatives be paid as well? Should tire manufacturers be paid for making tires? Should they have to share a portion of their profit with those who make the vehicles the tires ride on? Or, should the car manufacturer be happy that there are profitable tire manufacturers who help keep their cars on the road so they can make more money by selling parts and services to cars that get flat tires?

- - - Updated - - -

As long as the developer gets a cut, its fine. My fear is that it will lead to stagnation in the variety of mods being produced. Once it becomes a "for profit" thing, non-profitable mods will be abandoned in favor of what ever sells.

Well, facts disprove this. Again, I defer to Wordpress. There are still gobs of free 'mods' being made every day for Wordpress. And there are gobs of paid mods for Wordpress. Neither has cancelled the other out. The Wordpress community is huge, active and Matt Mullenweg, the owner of Automattic who creates Wordpress, is filthy rich as a result of this business model.

And Wordpress has a solution to the mods it 'hosts.' Volunteers test, review and evaluate mods before they're made available for download on the Wordpress website, just like volunteer moderators are reading this post to make sure it contains appropriate content. The same 'peer review' process could be made for KSP mods (which is a damn sight more than exists now). So, your issues of quality and stagnation are easily countered.

IMHO, it was a huge mistake for Squad to turn mod hosting over to Curse in the first place.

What I don't understand is, people have no problem with mod developers charging for derivatives of non-gaming software, like Wordpress, Drupal and Joomla. But the moment you call it a game, they better do it for free or everyone will freak and come up with excuses for why it shouldn't be done.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Fengist

[Randazzo]

You are partially correct. Original authors should get paid. The question is, should only the original authors get paid or should those who make derivatives be paid as well? Should tire manufacturers be paid for making tires? Should they have to share a portion of their profit with those who make the vehicles the tires ride on? Or, should the car manufacturer be happy that there are profitable tire manufacturers who help keep their cars on the road so they can make more money by selling parts and services to cars that get flat tires?

I am entirely correct.

The comparison you are attempting to make doesn't work. Tires are not derivative works based off of cars, created by using resources included in the car. Even if they were, you'd be looking at patent issues (if there were any issues at all), which are entirely unrelated to software, which is treated as print and cannot be patented (yet, hopefully not ever) and can only be copyrighted.

KSP does not require mods to function, unlike a car which needs it's tires.

[AlphaAsh]

You can't get paid for derivative work without the original authors getting paid too, and with their permission. End of story, no amount of density will change that.

See the bolded bit. I wouldn't argue with you. I just want games developers and publishers to give me that permission. Of course they should get their cut. Not arguing with that either.

[Sekonda]

I feel that the community in Kerbal is so dedicated to such an awesome and fun educational game that few would ask for money. However there are some mods out there that I have donated to because of how excellent they are. I'd pay for the Shuttle mod simply because of its quality I feel I'd love to buy the developer a cup of coffee. But that's what donate buttons are for. Monetising and turning it into a taxable employment in which Steam would benefit would be monstrous.

[Fengist]

I am entirely correct.

The comparison you are attempting to make doesn't work. Tires are not derivative works based off of cars, created by using resources included in the car. Even if they were, you'd be looking at patent issues (if there were any issues at all), which are entirely unrelated to software, which is treated as print and cannot be patented (yet, hopefully not ever) and can only be copyrighted.

KSP does not require mods to function, unlike a car which needs it's tires.

Ok, perhaps a bad comparison but the basis of it is still valid. Were I to develop mods for KSP, I'd personally have no problem with a share going to Squad. And I have no issue with the permissions. Making sure that a mod meets certain standards is safeguarding their franchise. In a previous post, I suggested a peer review process before mods are allowed to be distributed. But, the original authors do get paid in the form of sales of their original product. They should be thrilled that there are people out there willing to spend time, money and effort creating mods and shouldn't breech the OMG greed barrier like Bethesda and demand 75% of the profits for Skyrim mods. And THAT is why I, in principle, disagree with with some mandatory fee being paid to the original authors. If such a fee is arranged, it should be a fair one and not one that totally discourages mods.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd pay for the Shuttle mod simply because of its quality I feel I'd love to buy the developer a cup of coffee. But that's what donate buttons are for.

So mod developers should be relegated to the same level as street beggars who hold out their hat for your... coffee change? Really?

IMonetising and turning it into a taxable employment in which Steam would benefit would be monstrous.

Steam already makes money off KSP, what's the difference???

Edited April 26, 2015 by Fengist

[3Dave]

The level of division and toxicity that just discussing this topic brings out is why its a bad idea.

Its akin to the government passing a tax on breathing air. its been free for all of history, the very concept of paying for it is abhorrent and would trigger a bloody revolt. of course thats not accurate since games dont need mods to survive, but people need air to survive. just a little bit of exaggeration =).

I might have come off a little too negative in my earlier posts. I will back track a little and say that i dont see anything inherently "bad" about "good" modders being paid a cut of profits for selling "good" mods. It might actually be beneficial to the community by encouraging modders to go the extra mile so that their product can pass the test to get on the paid shop. But thats ONLY if there is some sort of community review process for mods to be considered for payment. If it ends up as an app store type post-and-profit type deal where anyone can upload anything and sell it. Then it will get very ugly very fast.

I propose that any such shop be operated by Squad themselves. To keep the profit share more fair. no 3rd parties (valve) involved taking a cut just for hosting. And it should feature community review for the paid section where the community can download the mod, try it out, then answer a few simple questions, such as "does this mod deserve to be paid for?" "how much would you pay for this mod?" etc. and of course, put a reasonable cap on prices, so we cant end up with $99 horse testicles.

[Fengist]

If it ends up as an app store type post-and-profit type deal where anyone can upload anything and sell it. Then it will get very ugly very fast.

Agree.

I propose that any such shop be operated by Squad themselves.

Agree.

And it should feature community review for the paid section where the community can download the mod, try it out.

Disagree. Mods should be tested by Squad, or those appointed by Squad, before the community ever sees them and Squad should decide whether the mod meets certain standards. The price should be determined by the creator of the mod and the community should then decide if they want to pay that price. Squad should only be concerned with their share, not what the mod creator deems an appropriate price.

I can promise you, if someone creates a fantastic mod and tries to charge $99 horse testicles for it, someone else will make a similar mod and charge $89. That's the way supply and demand works. You don't need to enforce a price point. The community will.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Fengist

[3Dave]

Disagree. Mods should be tested by Squad before the community ever sees them and Squad should decide whether the mod is worthy. The price should be determined by the creator of the mod and the community should then decide if they want to pay that price. Squad should only be concerned with their share, not what the mod creator deems an appropriate price.

Well, of course they will need to examine the mod beforehand. if the mod is paid, it technically becomes DLC for their game, and represents their game. But the FULL burden of the decision should not rest on the single party of the developer.

As for the reasonable price issue. Mods are what keep games alive LONG past their expiration date. Look at skyrim, I still play that game, because of mods, i can completely change the game and greatly enhance replayability. If i had to spend 20-30 bucks each time i did that, i would not do it NEARLY as often, or at all. however, 99 cents or 2 bucks ect, would seem a reasonable price to pay for *SOME* mods, if they change quite a bit. The danger with KSP is that its been in early access for 2 years already. If suddenly all the main mods people use to enhance the game and provide that replayability factor were to go on a pay to play format, it would seriously hurt the games future success. As most of the people that will be interested in the game have already bought into the beta version, and its our word of mouth that spreads interest in the game. if we get bored and stop playing now, Squad loses a ton of free advertising and has to start from scratch building a new player base with sales and expensive advertising.

[Camacha]

If you are being honest then Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Oracle, Google, EA, Bioware, etc. ad nauseam, would indicate that you sir, are an extreme rarity. Every single week I get notices from my shareware that someone is yet again using a cracked serial number. They'd rather risk their entire hard drive and their own identity by downloading an executable serial generator made by some leet-speak cracking group rather than compensate me, a one-man-band 'little guy', for the work I've done.

Point is, Google, Apple, Bioware et cetera are not asking for donations. They sell their stuff, sometimes rather forcefully, so a lot of people try to avoid paying for those pieces of software at all cost. It is true that some people will avoid paying no matter what, but developments in music and indie games in recent years have shown that people are willing to pay again after a period where everything seemed free - it just depends on the circumstances.

Over the years I have learnt to avoid most of the big parties with inflexible or forceful models. That is a huge cost saver right from the start, in no small part made possible by open source software. The money saved is partly spent on a couple of big parties that are hard to avoid or make indispensable software, and partly spent on smaller developers that make the most amazing things with the end user in mind. I do not mind paying for good software. I mind being extorted in deals that seem mostly good for just one party, or that seem to tie me to a developer or ecosystem for the foreseeable future.

Let me return the question; do you really think all of those illegal users of your software would have paid for the software without other options? How many people do actually pay, along with those that do not? And how many illegal users end up buying the software sooner of later for their and your convenience?

In music it has been shown that illegal downloading does not impact sales in negative ways, and there are strong indications it actually increases sales for a number of reasons. I would be surprised to find that software works much different.

[3Dave]

Over the years I have learnt to avoid most of the big parties with inflexible or forceful models. That is a huge cost saver right from the start, in no small part made possible by open source software. The money saved is partly spent on a couple of big parties that are hard to avoid or make indispensable software, and partly spent on smaller developers that make the most amazing things with the end user in mind. I do not mind paying for good software. I mind being extorted in deals that seem mostly good for just one party, or that seem to tie me to a developer or ecosystem for the foreseeable future.

Slightly off topic. But this is exactly why I shifted my entire workflow to open source software (3D artist, I mainly use: GIMP/Blender). When Adobe started shifting toward their subscription based model I said NOPE. Ive never agreed with autodesk's EXTREMELY restrictive licensing on Max/Maya, and the assets created with them, at any point, so I was a VERY early adopter of blender. But I was a Photoshop user and license owner. They lost a long term customer with their excessive grasping for more and more money for not much more product. And yes, I donate to the projects of both blender and GIMP, because I dont believe in freeloading if I'm using the product to make money.

[blu3wolf]

Here's a hint, guys. Every game dies eventually. I've been gaming for well over 30 years now and not one single game I played 15 years ago (I still have a few from 10 years ago) is still in my library.

Not into Flight Sims, I guess? Falcon 4.0 is still going... this from a 1998 release.

Not true. There is no alternative to mods like Jeb, and KAS. Every single day millions of people spend a $1 or $2 on useless stupid apps for their phone. I'd have had no problem paying that for a good KSP mod.

No alternatives for now - because there is no need for them.

Charge a price for them, and all of a sudden there will be a demand for the niche that they used to fill.

As for the reasonable price issue. Mods are what keep games alive LONG past their expiration date. Look at skyrim, I still play that game, because of mods, i can completely change the game and greatly enhance replayability. If i had to spend 20-30 bucks each time i did that, i would not do it NEARLY as often, or at all. however, 99 cents or 2 bucks ect, would seem a reasonable price to pay for *SOME* mods, if they change quite a bit.

Case in point, Morrowind - 2002. Case in point, Falcon 4.0 - 1998.

If it cost 99 cents for each of the mods in my morrowind install, it would have cost me over US$100 - over AU$150 - to reinstall it the other day. As it was, its on steam for AU$20. One is an affordable price to check out an old game. One is a price that would never get paid, not for nostalgia.

In a slightly more relevant topic, the only reason Falcon still has development at all is because it is free. Every time someone starts to discuss paying the BMS developers (only surviving mod team for that game), peoples brains start to melt...

For posterity - I think mod developers should have the ability to set a price for their work. I certainly am not very likely to pay for a mod after paying for the game, however - this is just a fact of my income level. Im inspired once more by Bethesda's decision with Morrowind to release the level creation tools they used with the game, opening the game up to modders - and in doing so ensuring that 13 years on, they still have an active (albeit smaller) community of players and modders.

To my mind, modding is at heart the addition to, or alteration of, existing game content, by non members of the development team, for ones own purpose. You make a mod for yourself, and release it for everyone. Or not, as the case may be. Whilst I think modders should have the option to set a price on their work, I dont think they should take that option. A mod should be made because you yourself want the game to work that way, not because you think you can sell it to the same crowd that spends their money on pay to win iphone apps.

[Guest]

I have to say, while I am not against people making money from their mods the nature of Squad's "mod advertising agreement" (being able to post info about your mod) for this site and Curse pretty much preclude selling code. Assets, maybe, code, no. Since all code must be source-available, nothing stops the user from downloading and compiling for themselves. Personally, I think the source-available model is a good thing as it has fostered a great sense of cooperation and community here. Also, there is the thing against donate buttons in the game, also a good thing.

[Fengist]

Let me return the question; do you really think all of those illegal users of your software would have paid for the software without other options?

Nope, and in just a few months Windows users will be paying dearly for those illegal users and their 'other' options. Because of all the hacked copies of Windows in China, MS has decided that Windows 10 will be free... Yay! Download the technical preview and you'll understand why it's free. You can't even play solitaire without being bombarded with advertising. Is this really the alternative you want? Free software with advertising slapping you in the face with every click?

How many people do actually pay, along with those that do not? And how many illegal users end up buying the software sooner of later for their and your convenience?

I can't give you that stat. I suppose I could dig through my database and come up with a number but I'm willing to bet that once they have a hacked copy, there's no reason to purchase.

In music it has been shown that illegal downloading does not impact sales in negative ways, and there are strong indications it actually increases sales for a number of reasons. I would be surprised to find that software works much different.

I don't doubt you're correct. Even though I have the ability to remotely disable these hacked copies (all of the help files are on the web and the stupid hackers assumed I just fed them raw html without recording the visits) in the past 5 years it's been on the market, I've only shut down two illegal copies. There's an old saying in business, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

And you avoiding inflexible licenses is exactly why I haven't written anything for KSP. I'm an old school programmer. It took me ages to figure out OOP. That means that my code uses old school methods that may be slower or less efficient than those who know the latest code updates. Old programming axiom, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. For that very reason, I don't release my code because I don't need some 12 year old telling me my code sucks. It works and I understand it, that's all that matters. Squad's demand that I release my full source is exactly why I won't write mods, addons, apps or anything else for KSP. I don't need the aggravation surrounding something I'm not getting paid for.

[John FX]

My answer to the OP is no. They will not become paid.

It's my opinion and I have reasons but I'm not being drawn into a copyright argument.

[Fengist]

I have to say, while I am not against people making money from their mods the nature of Squad's "mod advertising agreement" (being able to post info about your mod) for this site and Curse pretty much preclude selling code. Assets, maybe, code, no. Since all code must be source-available, nothing stops the user from downloading and compiling for themselves. Personally, I think the source-available model is a good thing as it has fostered a great sense of cooperation and community here. Also, there is the thing against donate buttons in the game, also a good thing.

I'll agree with one point. I don't want donate buttons or advertising popping up in the middle of me trying to land on some planet. And that 'agreement' is exactly what we're discussing here. While open source may be a good thing in your eyes, I'm again going to reiterate that not everyone is independently wealthy enough to sit and write code and still afford to eat. I'm one of those people. While forced open source may foster this great community amongst those who can write code for free, it slams the door in the face of those of us who can't.

If some plumber came and fixed your backed up toilet for free I'm sure you'd think they're making your neighborhood a wonderful, cooperative community. Giving away their talents and education to make your life more pleasant. Wouldn't this be a great model for society?

Utopian societies have been tried. None have worked. Why are mod creators expected to be Utopian but you're OK with your plumber a being capitalist?

[Randazzo]

I'll agree with one point. I don't want donate buttons or advertising popping up in the middle of me trying to land on some planet. And that 'agreement' is exactly what we're discussing here. While open source may be a good thing in your eyes, I'm again going to reiterate that not everyone is independently wealthy enough to sit and write code and still afford to eat. I'm one of those people. While forced open source may foster this great community amongst those who can write code for free, it slams the door in the face of those of us who can't.

If some plumber came and fixed your backed up toilet for free I'm sure you'd think they're making your neighborhood a wonderful, cooperative community. Giving away their talents and education to make your life more pleasant. Wouldn't this be a great model for society?

Utopian societies have been tried. None have worked. Why are mod creators expected to be Utopian but you're OK with your plumber a being capitalist?

You continue on this line as if somebody is forcing you to create mods and not paying you for it. That is not happening.

If you want to get paid for your "work", create something original or get an actual job.

[Fengist]

To my mind, modding is at heart the addition to, or alteration of, existing game content, by non members of the development team, for ones own purpose. You make a mod for yourself, and release it for everyone. Or not, as the case may be. Whilst I think modders should have the option to set a price on their work, I dont think they should take that option. A mod should be made because you yourself want the game to work that way, not because you think you can sell it to the same crowd that spends their money on pay to win iphone apps.

And why not? The shareware I created was out of necessity. I wanted a program to work a certain way. After I was done, I released it as freeware. A day and 10,000 downloads later I realized I'd created something that I not only wanted but something others wanted. So, was I obligated to keep that program freeware because I suddenly thought I could improve and sell it?

Necessity is the mother of invention. And because of inventors who saw a necessity, you have wondrous marvels, like electricity, automobiles, airplanes, cell phones, etc. If the people who invented those things were told, you shouldn't charge for them, they would have had no reason to give them away.

You're asking mod creators to be altruistic. Do you use your education and talents to be altruistic? Do you give those skills away for free? If so, send me enough cash that I can live my life without having to worry about bills and I'll be a philanthropist too.

- - - Updated - - -

You continue on this line as if somebody is forcing you to create mods and not paying you for it. That is not happening.

If you want to get paid for your "work", create something original or get an actual job.

I think you need to read what I've posted before you start slinging insults. I do not create mods because of the license agreement and I have created something original and I do have a job.

[Mecripp]

I'll agree with one point. I don't want donate buttons or advertising popping up in the middle of me trying to land on some planet. And that 'agreement' is exactly what we're discussing here. While open source may be a good thing in your eyes, I'm again going to reiterate that not everyone is independently wealthy enough to sit and write code and still afford to eat. I'm one of those people. While forced open source may foster this great community amongst those who can write code for free, it slams the door in the face of those of us who can't.

If some plumber came and fixed your backed up toilet for free I'm sure you'd think they're making your neighborhood a wonderful, cooperative community. Giving away their talents and education to make your life more pleasant. Wouldn't this be a great model for society?

Utopian societies have been tried. None have worked. Why are mod creators expected to be Utopian but you're OK with your plumber a being capitalist?

( Utopian societies have been tried. None have worked ) because there not enough good people would be my very best guess there is to many greedy people in the world today but there are a lot of good people that just want to help and sharpen there skills and then you have the greedy people always looking to get rich and a good poor man will give you the shirt off his back a greedy person will try and sell it to you.

EDIT- Did anyone beg you to mod ? If you don't like the rules there are more places for you to go and try and get rich best of luck to you.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Mecripp2