Take Two and the handling of modders...

[TLTay]

Apparently, there have been some pretty serious lawsuits launched by T2 against modders recently who were trying to improve/modernize GTA titles. I know the KSP2 dev team said that mod support is a key element for the game, but I tend to look more at what a company DOES rather than what it SAYS.

I think Nate and crew have a full understanding of how essential modding will be to the life of KSP2, but the suits... I'm not so sure.

Do you guys think they will limit or ban certain kinds of mod material so they can cash in on DLC down the road? Is it possible that if they decide on a DLC route they could launch lawsuits against modders refusing to take down their "competing"  mods? What they've done with GTA lately I kind of understand from a profit perspective since the mod community can often do a much better job for free on a remaster of a loved title, but it leads me to worry about what kinds of actions might end up being down the line for KSP2...

The suits need to understand that KSP2 cannot be treated in that manner. Without mods, it will die quickly. Will they try to attack the KSP1 modding community if KSP2 doesn't sell well right off the start line? Anybody else worried about this?

[Guest The Doodling Astronaut]

GTA and KSP are very different games. Second GTA, in my opinion, does not rely so much of it's success on mods.

If Take Two does not support modding for KSP 2, there will be a big uproar in the community, they could probably get away with it if KSP was not such a mod based game, but well it is. 

KSP has a very large modding community, and a big chunk of KSP players play with mods.

 

Here is also the other thing, @Nate Simpson and many others in interviews have talked about things they hope modders will do, like solar sails. If the developers intend for this game to be modified, it will probably be modifiable.

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, TLTay said:

Apparently, there have been some pretty serious lawsuits launched by T2 against modders recently who were trying to improve/modernize GTA titles.

I heard a different story, that the modders for GTAV were unlocking DLC content for free. But I doubt either side's story is the actual truth.

 

[The Aziz]

Amy more examples of T2 blocking mods? Other than literally one game of dozens they own?

[TLTay]

24 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Amy more examples of T2 blocking mods? Other than literally one game of dozens they own?

Still not confidence inspiring. It would be a shame if KSP ip was next on the list.

Imagine the money they could make on official parts packs, planet packs, and new features. When DLC come into play, will they attack competitors? Some of the mods that were targeted for the GTA series were quite old, but were apparently taken down as competitors to the upcoming remasters etc.

It's not too much to ask that KSP2 have a bulletproof legal agreement upon purchase that guarantees that certain kinds of mods are allowed forever, and will not be subject to takedown no matter what profitable opportunities arise for T2 in the future.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Amy more examples of T2 blocking mods? Other than literally one game of dozens they own?

None from Private Division games, I haven't heard anything for 2K games, and nothing yet on old GTA games up until when they wanted to release their remaster and thus blocked some community projects doing the same.

 

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I heard a different story, that the modders for GTAV were unlocking DLC content for free. But I doubt either side's story is the actual truth.

When making GTA V Rockstar took a lot of ideas from the GTA SA modding community, like the Deluxo (Vanilla Delorean) or the Stromberg (Vanilla submarine car) but put all of that on the multiplayer blocked behind microtransactions. The point is, even if they abandoned single player, to play it you had to costantly update the game for the multiplayer and all of those car were there, they just don't spawn in single player. That started a sort of war between Rockstar and the modders, the modders trying to unlock MP exclusive cars in SP and Rockstar trying to block them from doing so, then ad an unofficial multiplayer mod to play modded on private servers and avoid all the microtransaction crap and the fact that at some point Rockstar was banning people from the game for SP only mods.
The relationship between Rockstar and the modding community has never been the best.

 

11 minutes ago, TLTay said:

Still not confidence inspiring. It would be a shame if KSP ip was next on the list.

Imagine the money they could make on official parts packs, planet packs, and new features. When DLC come into play, will they attack competitors? Some of the mods that were targeted for the GTA series were quite old, but were apparently taken down as competitors to the upcoming remasters etc.

That's assuming that KSP is as strong of an IP as GTA, which is absurd, if you block the modding community on GTA nothing happens, if you do the same to KSP you'll probably have 3 or 4 competitor games launched within the month to compete to be "KSP Spiritual successor after T2 ruined it". 
It happened again and again in the industry with bigger IP than KSP, if you want a city sim today you don't buy Sim City whatever, but Cities Skyline and if you want a game like Rollercoaster Tycoon you don't even search for what new low the IP has been dragged to (mobile exclusive sequels) but go directly to alternatives like Planet Coaster.

Rockstar has a excrementsty attitude towards modders because they don't think there's nothing to lose, with KSP any damage you do to modding is direct damage to the IP and if the modding community moves to whatever competitor, even an inferior one, most of the fans will follow and pick up the inferior product.

21 minutes ago, TLTay said:

It's not too much to ask that KSP2 have a bulletproof legal agreement upon purchase that guarantees that certain kinds of mods are allowed forever, and will not be subject to takedown no matter what profitable opportunities arise for T2 in the future.

Also, moddability and mod support is one of the main advertised features of the game, why aren't you asking the same for colonies, multiplayer or interstellar travel? If you really think that they're blatantly lying on such a core feature why trust them on anything else?

 

Are we really forgetting that the first thing they ever did for this game was inviting a bunch of modders to their studio? That was a publisher marketing team thing, not a Star Theory initiative.

[jastrone]

unless a mod directly copies a dlc and basicaly just pirates a dlc or if they are mod menus that work in multiplayer i dont think any mods will get banned. but even that is if they make dlc. otherwise there not really a reason to not allow mods since they dont ruin other players experiences and they earn the same amount of money from a player not depending if they play with or without mods

[The Aziz]

GTA is a milking machine, nothing else. If modders interfere with their cow, they get angry, modders get angry, everyone gets angry and it gets a lot of spotlight because it's popular. Plus GTA was never advertised as moddable game. Kerbals are, from the beginning.

One thing I can think of, is Surface Experiment Pack, where end of development coincided with the announcement of Breaking Ground. Here: 

But then, nobody took down Remotetech, Kerbal Alarm Clock, KER, and many other mods that were there before Squad decided to implement similar features into the game, for free or in the form of DLC. Why would that happen now? The publisher hasn't changed.

[TLTay]

42 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Also, moddability and mod support is one of the main advertised features of the game, why aren't you asking the same for colonies, multiplayer or interstellar travel? If you really think that they're blatantly lying on such a core feature why trust them on anything else?

I'm not concerned about the dev team's commitment and vision at all, it's the bean counters and corporate types that worry me.

42 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Are we really forgetting that the first thing they ever did for this game was inviting a bunch of modders to their studio? That was a publisher marketing team thing, not a Star Theory initiative.

I actually forgot about that. I hope my concerns are completely unfounded, but we won't be able to know for certain until mods get pulled for interfering with sales of DLC.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, TLTay said:

but we won't be able to know for certain until mods get pulled for interfering with sales of DLC.

KSP is a "T2" game , how many mods had they pulled when the same features came up in a DLC or update?

T2 has 4 publishing labels, more than 25 internal studios and third party agreement for a dozen other IPs, how many other game had the same crap with the modding community GTA has? If we were talking about Nintendo I would understand, but as much as it sucks for it to even exist in 2021 the "anti-modding" stance in T2 seems to be confined to Rockstar and not even all of their titles.

I'm not saying it can't possibly happen, just that at the moment we don't have treason to worry about it.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Master39

[K^2]

5 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Second GTA, in my opinion, does not rely so much of it's success on mods.

GTA modding scene is huge, and it's a big part of why the games have been popular through the years. T2 taking action against modders was a huge slap in the face to the community.

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I heard a different story, that the modders for GTAV were unlocking DLC content for free. But I doubt either side's story is the actual truth.

The problem is that T2 has attacked people who were making modding tools, not people who were using said tools to get DLC etc. Likewise, tools have been used in the past to cheat in GTAO. Which, you know, if you are a competent developer, you plug holes in your online title and not rely on client security for it, but suing members of community is easier, apparently.

 

So yeah, there are some ugly precedents here. Hopefully, without multiplayer getting monetized, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an incentive to create barriers. There are also limitations in tech. GTA runs on a proprietary engine, so there were a handful of people who knew how to build tools to work with said engine. With KSP2 running on Unity, a whole lot of tools are already out there and more will be made. So it's going to be very hard to stop modders. With any luck, that's enough reason for T2 to leave KSP2 alone. But some sort of crackdown on modding at some point on the future is not out of realm of possibilities.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, TLTay said:

Still not confidence inspiring. It would be a shame if KSP ip was next on the list.

Imagine the money they could make on official parts packs, planet packs, and new features. When DLC come into play, will they attack competitors? Some of the mods that were targeted for the GTA series were quite old, but were apparently taken down as competitors to the upcoming remasters etc.

It's not too much to ask that KSP2 have a bulletproof legal agreement upon purchase that guarantees that certain kinds of mods are allowed forever, and will not be subject to takedown no matter what profitable opportunities arise for T2 in the future.

The way you fix this is to have DLC with features people want to add into mods, this make the DLC an requirement for the mod. Kind of like an ship with making history parts. 
 

[CobaltWolf]

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

One thing I can think of, is Surface Experiment Pack, where end of development coincided with the announcement of Breaking Ground. Here: 

If I may dispel any rumors - SEP's development ending was entirely my own decision. I had already privately stopped maintaining it, and the reveal of Breaking Ground's own surface experiments motivated me to make it official.

[Guest The Doodling Astronaut]

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

GTA modding scene is huge, and it's a big part of why the games have been popular through the years. T2 taking action against modders was a huge slap in the face to the community.

I would have to disagree. It’s only huge because the game is huge. But out of all gta players, a small minority play with mods. The same cannot be said about KSP. Which many depend on mods. KSP depends on mods for its success, something GTA can get away with.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

   Pretty sure if the game is unmoddable, they’ll lose a lot more money than if it is. It’s a key part of the game, and I think that Intercept understands that. 
Also- having hired one of the community’s most prominent modders, one would hope that they are looking for input on how to make the game better for those who want to create for it. 

[Guest The Doodling Astronaut]

53 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

   Pretty sure if the game is unmoddable, they’ll lose a lot more money than if it is. It’s a key part of the game, and I think that Intercept understands that. 
Also- having hired one of the community’s most prominent modders, one would hope that they are looking for input on how to make the game better for those who want to create for it. 

Exactly. I wouldn't be worrying about KSP 2 not having the ability to mod.

[MechBFP]

13 hours ago, TLTay said:

but I tend to look more at what a company DOES rather than what it SAYS.

In that case, make sure to look at the right companies.

[K^2]

7 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

I would have to disagree. It’s only huge because the game is huge. But out of all gta players, a small minority play with mods. The same cannot be said about KSP. Which many depend on mods. KSP depends on mods for its success, something GTA can get away with.

Now, sure. But between major releases during GTA III and GTA IV eras, modding community is what kept the interest in the games alive to a large degree. I've been a moderator of GTAForums for well over a decade and community member even longer. I wasn't too heavily involved in the mod development, but I've been participating here and there, including some early testing of Open IV. Modding community is what kept the game alive during the slow years, and is a big part of why it managed to stay relevant through longer dev cycles of later titles.

7 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Pretty sure if the game is unmoddable, they’ll lose a lot more money than if it is. It’s a key part of the game, and I think that Intercept understands that. 

It will be moddable regardless. It just would be nice to be able to publish mods openly rather than through back channels. A built-in mod manager would be great too.

Edited December 8, 2021 by K^2

[J.Random]

23 hours ago, Master39 said:

how many other game had the same crap with the modding community GTA has?

From the top of my head, RDR had this issue. I'm sure any "enhancement" mod of an old title will have the same problem when there's an upcoming rerelease.

We're talking about a company which in the past sent thugs to a youtuber's home over some stupid twitch thumbnails, a company which just recently attacked "It Takes Two" developers over the name trademark, because obviously it's a reference to "take two interactive" and not to "it takes two to tango". /s

 

The only saving grace for KSP is that it's a relatively small, niche product. If it ever turns into a cash cow, the same will happen to it as well.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, J.Random said:

From the top of my head, RDR had this issue. I'm sure any "enhancement" mod of an old title will have the same problem when there's an upcoming rerelease.

We're talking about a company which in the past sent thugs to a youtuber's home over some stupid twitch thumbnails, a company which just recently attacked "It Takes Two" developers over the name trademark, because obviously it's a reference to "take two interactive" and not to "it takes two to tango". /s

Rockstar again so.

We're talking about a company that has different publishing labels that show a completely different behavior when dealing with their IPs and games, Rockstar distaste for modding (Yep, modding kept GTA relevant on PC for years but for Rockstar is also known for terrible PC ports and snobbing the PC crowd with late releases anyway) doesn't seem to have permeated any of  the other dozens of titles published by T2 or developed by one of their internal studios.

So far it seems that Private Division is a different publishing label for a reason and the games we see are different in scope, budget and monetization from the ones we see from either Rockstar or 2K. 

 

1 hour ago, J.Random said:

The only saving grace for KSP is that it's a relatively small, niche product. If it ever turns into a cash cow, the same will happen to it as well.

So it's useless to even worry, KSP won't become a cash-cow as long as it requires understanding orbital mechanics to enjoy it, worst case scenario for KSP is that they decide to follow the "Paradox Model" (which I don't consider a bad deal at all) anything past that and you just damaging the IP without increasing profits. 

[K^2]

20 hours ago, J.Random said:

a company which just recently attacked "It Takes Two" developers over the name trademark, because obviously it's a reference to "take two interactive" and not to "it takes two to tango". /s

Trademark law in US is ugly. Big companies definitely need to play softer with this, because it comes off as bullying and can actually cause great damage to smaller companies; and T2 is one of the notable offenders. (Bethesda is another one I'd call out.) But also they are technically required by law to attack other companies over anything that can be remotely perceived as a trademark infringement.

The problem is that unlike copyright, which you just own regardless, you can lose trademark if you don't demonstrate that you are taking steps to protect it. So hypothetically speaking, if I was to release a game and slap Take Two logo on it and T2 rightfully sues me for it, I could go and demonstrate a bunch of examples of previous "trademark violations" that T2 hasn't responded to, and argue that as they have not defended the trademark, that trademark is no longer valid. And what's really stupid is that this has been done and upheld by courts, meaning this is basically de facto law that you have to attack anything that even remotely looks like an infringement.

Now, when this is done in a civilized manner, some sort of an agreement is immediately struck with the other company. The problem is that when it's done in a ham-fisted way, the damage might already be done. The cases like Mojang's Scrolls are particularly notable. But critically, the discussion should be about how the dispute was handled, and not over the fact that there was a dispute in the first place. Yes, it sounds absolutely stupid. I think it actually is stupid. But that doesn't change the fact that existing law forces these disputes to exist over something that should be entirely a non-issue.

[Alien21]

On 12/8/2021 at 3:27 PM, The Doodling Astronaut said:

I would have to disagree. It’s only huge because the game is huge. But out of all gta players, a small minority play with mods. The same cannot be said about KSP. Which many depend on mods. KSP depends on mods for its success, something GTA can get away with.

Definetely holy words. Mods will be definetely a factor which will determine in future the success of KSP2. If they will proceed againist mods, not only they will not maintain their promise to allow mods for the game, but they will destroy really the entire game. Mods are something which has changed a lot KSP1 about improvements. For a complex game like KSP2 you can't proceed with a mentality which refuse any collaboration about game extensions made not from the official developers, but from videogamers. As you can see from my signature, I'm an aviation enthusiast. I start to play with Flight Simulator in 2000 and after 20 years I still continue to play to that game. Why? If this feature was something which I had discovered only around 2006 with Flight Simulator X about the opportunity to add features which aren't official, this was an element which has determine the success of the microsoft series. Is a game where modders have definetely more influence than official developers, and just to explain how it was possible, I would focus about their last product, FS2020. CAUTION: IT COULD BE PRESENT "TECHNICAL LANGUAGE".

When they had announce FS2020, it was a great news, but few month later a lot of players was disappointed about the intention to release the game also on Xbox. With former FS2004 and FSX released in 2006, the flight control system about instruments was really accurate, the only thing which wasn't excellent was the start-up process for the most advanced planes such 737-800 and 747-400, while on small planes such Cessna 172 this process was more accurate, also if not so much deeply accurate like it happen with payware planes mods which was released for these games from 3rd parts. FS2020 has improved a lot of thing about graphics but a lot of control system was intially criticized due to their concept, which was more something which has reminded more an arcade videogame instead a simulation game. Also the promotion was a disappointment. Several players has tell that it was a bad choice make promotion with some influencers which has talked about mainstream videogames, but they haven't touched a flight simulator any time before, instead to allow the "flight simulation influencer" to do their job. After one year however the situation was changed, a lot of players which haven't a real interest has leaved the game, we have in any case new members inside our community and also if there are some elements which must be improved, the success of this game was also determined from the intention from microsoft and asobo studio to allow third parts to cooperate with them.  A news which has received a great positive feeback was the announce to support VATSIM (a multiplayer network which use realistic procedures and doesn't work only with FS2020 but also with Xplane Prepar3d and FSX) and other multiplayer networks since day 1. In addition also the opportunity to release freeware and payware add-on's was a key which has determine the success after 1 year, also if the start wasn't so excellent. And still today due to lack of mods it could be considered an uncomplete game, but in future the release of mods will definetely provide to improve game expericence.

KSP is definetely a complex game like FS2020. A developer must be concious that also when will be released, a game like this cannot be considered "complete". There a lot of feature which could be added without problem, and that could improve the game experience. You can give some updates, but it will be necessary always the fantasy inside the mind of the videogamers which can give some improvements.

[sunnypunny]

On 12/8/2021 at 7:10 PM, The Aziz said:

Amy more examples of T2 blocking mods? Other than literally one game of dozens they own?

Yes, there was a previous lawsuit some years ago, though IIRC it had to do with a mod that enabled cheating. Had trouble finding the details just now due to all the recent news clogging up Google, but I'm sure it could be found with enough digging.

If KSP2 ends up with multiplayer they definitely have to mitigate potential cheats and hacks, but for the kinds of mods that exist in KSP I doubt there would be anything significant to gain from a lawsuit. But at the end of the day modders are giving away work for free and risking being sued for copyright infringement so it would be nice if they add a clearer user agreement to garner more trust - and I think this is more likely now that the franchise is moving from indie scrapper to a big polished production.

[Kerbart]

On 12/7/2021 at 10:32 PM, TLTay said:

Apparently, there have been some pretty serious lawsuits launched by T2 against modders recently who were trying to improve/modernize GTA titles. I know the KSP2 dev team said that mod support is a key element for the game, but I tend to look more at what a company DOES rather than what it SAYS.

(...)

The suits need to understand that KSP2 cannot be treated in that manner. Without mods, it will die quickly. Will they try to attack the KSP1 modding community if KSP2 doesn't sell well right off the start line? Anybody else worried about this?

Totally different case:

1. T2 reissues old games but has them refreshed and upgraded
2. T2 totally botches this release
3. Modders roll out their own upgrade basically saying "DoN't BuY tHaT CrAp RelEaSe GeT OuRs InStEaD."

While all of the modders points might be true — It's not inconceivable the newly released game is riddled with bugs, and that the modders did reverse the source code without reusing IP — it's also clear that this undercuts T2 sales. Not just "even if all of the above is true" but especially if the above is true. A lawsuit might be bad publicity, allowing people to pick the free mod over the (probably indeed horrible) commercial release will certainly kill it. From a business point of view that makes the lawsuit pretty much a no-brainer. And yes, had they released a quality product that wouldn't have happened.

Now consider mods for KSP2:

• Enhance the game without costing T2 extra developers
• Mods require a working copy of KSP2, enhancing sales
• There's a proven track record that popular mods provide a breeding ground for ideas that can be turned into DLC, generating more sales

Whenever I see the word "suits" or "bean counters" it means that, nearly without exception, there is an expectation that the only reason these people go to work is to find ways to torpedo the product. Meetings are about "how can we do the most damage to our sales." Based on the "predictions" I see time and time again on this forum, we can expect that KSP will have "Wing Commander physics" so it can be "dumbed down for the masses," every launch will cost $0.25 in micropayments and they game will be so full of DRM that it hardly runs.

And yet... I don't get the impression that's the case with KSP2. The project managers seem to be passionate about the software, and the way they speak about implementation details suggests that it's more than just faking it. They also made clear that mods are a part of the game. And given that mods were instrumental in the evolution of KSP1, leading to its commercial success (selling for many years), why wouldn't it.

So, unless KSP2 sucks monumentally, and someone reverse engineers the source code, and releases a mod for KSP1 that turns it into KSP2, I don't expect T2 to launch lawsuits against modders.

 

 

 

[K^2]

5 hours ago, maj. M.AL. funqt10n said:

If KSP2 ends up with multiplayer they definitely have to mitigate potential cheats and hacks

I genuinely hope that KSP2 multiplayer never gets monetized, and I doubt there will be anything but co-op in vanilla, making cheating entirely pointless. Of course, I would have told you exact same thing about Minecraft circa 2009-2010. It's hard to imagine exactly where community will go with this one, and maybe we'll have some serious community-run RP/competitive servers for KSP2 out there.

Of course, these will inherently require mods. So disabling mods to prevent cheating in multiplayer that's only competitive because of mods would be totally pointless.

So in any case, I don't think there is any incentive to block mods because of multiplayer. The only reason T2 might create pressure to crack down on modding of KSP2 is if mods start cutting into DLC sales. Which isn't impossible, but I don't think it's high risk right now.