The problem isn't Steam, it's everyone else.

[DEAD34345]

That's a silly way to think. Sure, if Valve existed in the magical-happy-hippie world their ideas might have been all right[footnote]I actually doubt even that in this case.[/footnote], but they don't, so who cares? The problem is that these "good ideas" don't work in the world we actually live in, which is just an unnecessarily complicated way of saying that they are shit ideas.

My "free shot of heroin with every happy meal" idea would work great in the heroin-cures-all-disease world, but no-one seems willing to try it in this one.

 

[Olas]

The problem is the combination of human nature, and an unwillingness to properly police it when necessary. The only difference is there's nothing we can do about human nature (for now) so we have to try to police it better.

If a plane falls out of the sky, you don't blame gravity.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Oh no, it's Steam's fault. No doubt about it.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Actually, they can't.

Where the hell am I? Have I been transported to the We-Make-Up-Random-Laws-As-We-Go-Along-LOL universe?

I believe the argument is equivalent to someone making something on company time using company equipment. However, as noted, that isn't an equivalent. MS can't demand every manuscript made from MS Word suddenly be theirs because a lot of best-selling books have been made with it. They give you the software and anything made with it is yours; you're free to do whatever you wish with it at your own discretion as long as you don't distribute the program itself.

Anyway, like I said elsewhere, is it just me or has Valve been doing some really odd/scummy things for the past few years? Greenlight and Early Access have become a mess, bloated with terrible games with no semblance of QA and Valve refuses to address it. And now we have this attempt to charge for mods. You'd think for a company that brags about how they put their customers first they'd realize how bad of an idea it was. And we also have Early Access/Greenlight which also gives hints of lack of discipline. I don't know what's going on at Valve, but they need to do something lest it turn into Rapture over there.

 

[DoPo]

Actually, they can't.

Where the hell am I? Have I been transported to the We-Make-Up-Random-Laws-As-We-Go-Along-LOL universe?

I believe the argument is equivalent to someone making something on company time using company equipment.

It's not. I think, were that the basis of the statement, it would make it even more baffling.

 

[Elfgore]

If my local supermarket was selling rotten apples, I'm going to be blaming the store more than anyone else. Of course, it is still my job to not buy it, but it does not absolve the supermarket from selling it.

Just because people are abusing their systems means nothing. It is still Valve's job to properly moderate and cleanse it of any blemishes.

 

[crypticracer]

Their refund policies are absolute garbage, as is their customer support. Valve is running out of good will fast.

If they ever do run out of goodwill they have an ace up their sleeve that ends with a 3.

 

[Jarmam]

Steam (or Valve rather) does deserve some blame for both the Greenlight system and the mod debacle. The GL system is virtually unmonitored which makes it easy to exploit, and that's no one's fault but Valve's. The paid-mod system, while the idea behind is not bad, was implemented in the wrong game with the wrong community and without the proper legwork being done on how to deal with mods-based-on-mods, external modding etc. It simply wasn't properly prepared and I'll give them flack for that. We know it's coming back in some form, so all we can hope for is that this explosion leads to a much better 2nd round of professional modding.

Still a fanboy, though.

 

[TwistednMean]

Trying to make money on previously free content is bad. If they let mod creators collect donations or even sell mods without profit sharing or taking a token cut of 10%, then sure. But there wouldn't be a business case to implement the idea then. So they take a huge cut and share with Bethesda, because who would say no to free money, right?

While I am inclined to believe that there were good intentions behind this idea originally, its execution is unethical and it most certainly is Steam's problem.

 

[aozgolo]

For Early Access and Greenlight, I don't see a quality control issue, they go with a pro-free market stance where the consumers decide what's worth their money. It's not Valve's fault that you bought a game that clearly got Overwhelmingly Negative reviews and has been abandoned by the developer. Is your scroll-wheel broken? Go down beyond the screenshots and buy button and you'll find a lot of info on the game. Go to the community hub and ask questions about the game, make an informed decision.

Likewise finding good games among the bad isn't hard either. Steam has a good search function, has a user-based tag system, let's you find items via curators, friends, best sellers, new release, discount specials, recommendation queues, similar-to-items-you-play recommendations, and sort options based on genre, platform, # of players, price, and more. If you can't find good games on Steam then you aren't using these tools effectively.

For Paid Mods, I see a route for this, but there's several issues that need to be addressed, first is the distributor/creator cut, now they've gone on record saying this is a Publisher decision and not an across-the-board thing, so really if people are mad about the 25% cut thing that should be levied at Bethesda. The other and perhaps larger issue for why it failed is you don't EVER go into a 3.5 year established modding community and shake things up like that, it will NOT be received well. They would have much better luck doing this with a newly released title with mod support instead of an established community.

I don't take any issues with Steam in truth, I have found it to be a very reliable platform that has SIGNIFICANTLY enlarged my gaming library (I have over 500 games on it) for a modest price, and has every feature I could want to ensure I get the most out of it. Are they perfect? No, they make mistakes but unlike some companies they tend to learn from them as best they can.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No it was just Valve's fault in all those scenarios and Valve and Bethesda fucked up on the paid mods. The whole paid mods thing was doomed to failure from the start since they want to get the perks of DLC with the responsibilities of a mod. Along with zero accountability, quality control and protection from and of the "modders". Only people winning out of that paid for mod scheme were Bethesda and Valve. The players and mod community we not gaining fuck all from it.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

If they ever do run out of goodwill they have an ace up their sleeve that ends with a 3.

Which will end up with a $3 price tag a few months later.

The way I see it.
Greenlight the blame is split 50/50. Early access you where aware of the risk, I don't really know what one would expect Valve to do about people who abandon those games. Now with the mods... I don't know if valve has already thought this through, but why not just get mods from a different site? Let the system starve to death, unless valve starts attacking sites that host source game mods.

 

[Mutant1988]

The SDK for skyrim was released for FREE, so Bethesda has no right to anything made on it. Valve merely hosts the files, not wanting any more involvement than that. So they have, at most, a right to a SMALL margin of the profits. 75% for the mod maker, 25% for valve/bethesda, combined with quality/copyright control. THEN we're talking. As it is now, it's just blatant money grabbing off of other people's work.

Um, no. The SDK for skyrim was licensed for free with contractual understanding that you are not allowed to witout Beth's permission sell any content created using it. Technically speaking Beth owns all content made using the Creation Kit. as such, the vast majority of mods that use the CK during any step are Beth's to sell as they see fit even if they don't pay the content creator. This was known back in 2012. Now, mods using non-CK content are different although currently any mod, even pay mods, can use SKSE without any repercussions as long as they don't bundle it with their mod. Be interesting to see if the license for SKSE changes anytime soon.

Bethesda has a right to everything except;

Text written by the mod creator (They can however issue a cease and desist on text that involve their creative property).
Models created by the mod creator.
Animations created by the mod creator
Textures created by the mod creator.
Sounds created by the mod creator.

So essentially, they have a legal right to nothing at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

Anything you make that can be recognized as original work (ie, made by you) is protected by copyright.

They get a say whether you get to put your content in their game and whether you are allowed to charge for it for their game.

But they do not own your content.

It's no wonder companies get more and more say in what we are allowed to do or own when no one even bothers to look up how the law actually protects creative works. Not just for companies, but for everyone.

 

[Mutant1988]

The SDK for skyrim was released for FREE, so Bethesda has no right to anything made on it. Valve merely hosts the files, not wanting any more involvement than that. So they have, at most, a right to a SMALL margin of the profits. 75% for the mod maker, 25% for valve/bethesda, combined with quality/copyright control. THEN we're talking. As it is now, it's just blatant money grabbing off of other people's work.

Um, no. The SDK for skyrim was licensed for free with contractual understanding that you are not allowed to witout Beth's permission sell any content created using it. Technically speaking Beth owns all content made using the Creation Kit. as such, the vast majority of mods that use the CK during any step are Beth's to sell as they see fit even if they don't pay the content creator. This was known back in 2012. Now, mods using non-CK content are different although currently any mod, even pay mods, can use SKSE without any repercussions as long as they don't bundle it with their mod. Be interesting to see if the license for SKSE changes anytime soon.

Bethesda has a right to everything except;

Text written by the mod creator (They can however issue a cease and desist on text that involve their creative property).
Models created by the mod creator.
Animations created by the mod creator
Textures created by the mod creator.
Sounds created by the mod creator.

So essentially, they have a legal right to nothing at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

Anything you make that can be recognized as original work (ie, made by you) is protected by copyright.

They get a say whether you get to put your content in their game and whether you are allowed to charge for it for their game.

But they do not own your content.

It's no wonder companies get more and more say in what we are allowed to do or own when no one even bothers to look up how the law actually protects creative works. Not just for companies, but for everyone.

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit.

Now, while they could not prevent you from using any of the things you noted outside of Skyrim in other games barring terms and setting information exclusive to Skyrim, the moment you distribute any of the files, Bethesda gains the rights to take those files and do anything with them, including, should they see fit, sell them. Technically speaking they have the right to do that before you distribute said files but that's impossible and so is an irrelevant issue.

They still don't own them. They cannot restrict in any way what you do with that content.

Furthermore, good luck trying to enforce the effective appropriation of user created content in that manner. I mean, it's not like that policy of theirs doesn't contradict the very concept of copyright.

I'm also positive that this license of theirs would not hold up if they were to use your content outside of the product it was originally made for. You could easily argue that the terms of this agreement are deliberately worded as to strip creators of their copyrights simply by association with an otherwise irrelevant property (That is Skyrim).

At least Facebook is actually hosting, on their service, the images they steal from their users.

Also, legal definition of "New Materials"? I can't help but notice that those two words are capitalized for some reason. I'm curious as to whether their definition of what constitutes New Materials and how legally sound their claim to such material is.

). All uses of the Editor and any materials created using the Editor (the ?New Materials?)

Well that's very simple - The content isn't created with the editor. The implementation into the Skyrim engine is "created" with the editor.

You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials.

Good luck enforcing that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiver#Enforceability

In fact, it seems like those clauses are just as likely to be void as they are to be upheld. Proving my point that the legality and enforceability of these clauses are very dubious.

Of course, I do concede that my interpretation of the law stems solely from my ability to read what is written (And how it's insanely problematic in the extent of it's restrictions and the rights customers waiver and in how it's biased towards a single party of the contract) and that I lack the bribe aspect that influence the interpretations of the actual judicial system.

 

[ffronw]

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit.

Now, while they could not prevent you from using any of the things you noted outside of Skyrim in other games barring terms and setting information exclusive to Skyrim, the moment you distribute any of the files, Bethesda gains the rights to take those files and do anything with them, including, should they see fit, sell them. Technically speaking they have the right to do that before you distribute said files but that's impossible and so is an irrelevant issue.

Actually, this language exists for two reasons.

1. To allow Bethesda to use your mod to advertise the game in any way they see fit, including handing your materials to a third party to make ads with. This is the minor one.

2. To allow Bethesda to incorporate any new feature you create into the game without having to compensate you in any way. Have you ever noticed how the most popular mods for games like World of Warcraft end up becoming default functionality within the game? If a large number of users find a mod to be vital to their gameplay experience, it would behoove Bethesda (or any other company) to make it part of the default game, thereby removing the need to depend on a third party to keep it updated. Without this clause, you would likely have grounds to pursue compensation from the company if they did that.

 

[DoPo]

Furthermore, good luck trying to enforce the effective appropriation of user created content in that manner. I mean, it's not like that policy of theirs doesn't contradict the very concept of copyright.

Copyright is yours for the stuff you make as long as you don't yield it. For example, any thing I do at work is the property of my employer - it's there in my contract. I'll have to have a look at the Creation Toolkit license but copyright is less rigid than you make it out to be - you are able to be the not-sole-owner for things you've created. It is a widely used contract clause.

OK, to be more precise with my example, I'm sharing the copyright with my employer, as one can't effectively completely abandon it[footnote]I don't think CC-0 is as powerful as they claim, besides it's not actually applicable for me anyway[/footnote].

 

[DoPo]

2. To allow Bethesda to incorporate any new feature you create into the game without having to compensate you in any way. Have you ever noticed how the most popular mods for games like World of Warcraft end up becoming default functionality within the game? If a large number of users find a mod to be vital to their gameplay experience, it would behoove Bethesda (or any other company) to make it part of the default game, thereby removing the need to depend on a third party to keep it updated. Without this clause, you would likely have grounds to pursue compensation from the company if they did that.

Well, Bethesda also do it. I'm not familiar with the situation with WoW and mods, but Bethesda do take improvements from mods and incorporate them. Beth doesn't take them wholesale but there is a very clear influence from popular mods - the levelling system in Skyrim might be the best example - some of most popular mods ever for Morrowind (both GCD and MADD Leveller were the two most popular there) and Oblivion were changed the levelling system, and most of them did a variety of implementations that were ultimately included in Skyrim: the levelling system is changed to allow a more natural and not-in-your-way way of progressing. Skills level up as you use them and your character levels up by getting X skill levels (as opposed to depending on major/minor/misc skills). Another example would be the Hearthfire DLC for Skyrim which includes something for which there were already dozens of mods - a house.

Again, Bethesda doesn't really copy and paste modders' work (well, that I know of, anyway) but the ideas are there already. Were they not protected by the clause of "We can use what you created", they could be sued for it: "Oh, I see you implemented this system that is not unlike the one from my really popular mod. I don't appear to have given you permission.

 

[Mutant1988]

Again, Bethesda doesn't really copy and paste modders' work (well, that I know of, anyway) but the ideas are there already. Were they not protected by the clause of "We can use what you created", they could be sued for it: "Oh, I see you implemented this system that is not unlike the one from my really popular mod. I don't appear to have given you permission.

You can't copyright an idea though. Only actual works determined as original.

To claim an idea, you would need to file a patent and even then it's unlikely you would be granted it.

Anyone can copy any element of any game, as long as they don't copy the entire thing, any of the actual assets or try to deceive customers.

Most plagiarism isn't in fact illegal - Just extremely frowned upon and damaging from a public relations and professional point of view.

So no, they can't be sued for taking your ideas.