Thokri wrote: »

Have people forgotten paid addons attempt from bethesda?

I sure haven't forgiven that.

I have supported addon authors with donations but never on style bethesda tried.

Right. This is the natural progression from ideas like this. Compensation to mod authors, or add-on authors for this game, obviously requires that the players fork over additional cash.

Thokri wrote: »

Have people forgotten paid addons attempt from bethesda?

I sure haven't forgiven that.

I have supported addon authors with donations but never on style bethesda tried.

I am not aware of this as ESO is my first Bethesda game. Care to elaborate?

TequilaFire wrote: »

How do you all feel about paying for the add-ons you use?
*crickets*

I do, sort of, if they provide a function for donating to the author I send them gold from time to time.

@WhyMustItBe

I agree on the platform thing for sure. However, it is often met with complaints, legal issues, and technical issues. Things like that can end up simply costing more than it's worth. Just look at the history of some things like Lyme vaccine: it wasn't profitable to begin with and after tons of litigation the company just said fine we're just not going to make it anymore because it's simply a resource drain that so many complain about anyway.

The add-on creators can create the platform. Eg something like Minion could give developers an option to charge per download and/or use, which can be run non-profit with very low cost legal. If ZoS does it would be a bohemith in comparison in terms of legal, IT, and PR costs. Moreover, it's a potential waste of economic resources to have ZoS do it when a small group of coders can do it for a fraction of the resources.

Bottom line addon creators can easily set it up but they have chosen not to likely because they don’t want to charge.

Well that's different. So, I thought the argument was for ZoS to actively support add-ons through setting up a system to collect revenue for creators. That I see little to no purpose for given (potential) alternatives but I'm consciously naive.

However, if in fact ZoS actively prevents add-ons developers from collecting revenue on their own that is a whole other issue. How do they do it? Is there some contract to get the API? Does the ToS for players ban usage of paid for add-ons? Do they actually spend resources to police it? That would be unfortunate and most players I would think would not support that.

I can't see how that would make sense. They permit the add-ons. The only downside to permitting players paying add-on creators would be to dominate the players' budget for gaming. However, that is unlikely rational due to how micro-transactions work. Gaming consumers don't budget for micro-transactions. Doing some leads to doing more. That's why they work. So, why would ZoS ban it when they potentially stand to gain revenue given consumer behavior with micro-transactions?

@Dark_Lord_Kuro
In some senses ZoS is paying for add-ons to some degree by updating and providing an API as well as in-game integration.

The thread issue seems to be why don't they also create a platform for revenue.

It doesn't matter to me if they in particular do it, but what seems outrageous is that some have noted that ZoS actively prevents creators from collecting revenue themselves.

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

/snip

Considering 99.9% of mod and addon developers make horrifically terrifyingly bad pieces of code that somehow work... exactly what do you want them to get paid for? Bad work? The 1% that actually produce quality generally use it to get work in programing so they are compensated by the nature of getting work.

Ideologically, I personally feel that if any entity is posting profits in the billions of dollars, that they are not paying their employees what they should be. When it comes to corporations I have very strong opinions on how they behave.

However... I also do not think that it's a game developer/companies place to support addon developers for several reasons.

1. The addon developer is making a name for themselves and in reality, co-branding with ESO/ZoS in doing so. That is almost as good to put on a resume' and actually working for them. That is a huge gigantic benefit to people creating addons, specially those that have numerous downloads and people whom comment positively. As someone who has hired programmers in the past, I would see these things and hire someone with these kinds of positive responses before I would hire someone fresh out of college. And some of these people are doing these things while attending college, absolutely brilliant on their part.
2. If addon developers were being paid by a multi-billion or multi-million or being paid at all by the very people who developed the game, then why have them at all? Why not just simple hire people to create addons directly, or contract, or how about just incorporating the addon ideas into the game using in house programmers and forget about allowing addons at all? You can then forget about anyone making any addons while attending college making any money from donations, or creating real world content they can show on a resume'. You see, the lifelong benefit of developing addons is far more important than a company throwing an addon developing a monetary bone in this case.
3. If addon developers were paid by the billion dollar companies, they would have to pay taxes on that money, the game developers would have to report it in their own tax filings, thus the addon developers would as well. If they are attending college, and using grants or other types of monetary compensation that does not allow for them to make over a certain amount of money this could harm their grants.
4. Personally, I believe that if we find addons useful, we, being the people who benefit from these addons most should be supporting those who create them. I do, I know many who do. We certainly should not be expecting nor wanting ZoS to suppor them, then they would have more of a say and control over the addons themselves, and I am not far that at all.

In short, no, ZoS has no business, nor should they be supporting any addon developers. But we should be if we find them useful, and we should be posting positive reviews if we like them, those reviews when read by an employer mean far more than anything else you can do for the developers of addons.

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

I feel it is important to point out once again that MMO companies (not just ZOS) making literally billions have still not found a way in 2020 to give anything back to addon authors.

I personally know a guy who was solely responsible for updating and fixing over 2 dozen addons, for no pay, requiring hundreds of hours of work, having to be redone (sometimes dramatically) every single patch. Imagine working a full time job for no reward but the experience of doing it and the ubiquitous inbox spam of complaints and requests to do more free things faster.

That doesn't sound sustainable to me.

There is really no reason for an industry (again there are many capable leaders in the gaming industry who could do this not just ZOS) that has benefited greatly by the contributions of specifically mod and addon authors, to still to have no better idea of how to facilitate that relationship as Twitch and other revenue generating markets have done than to flat monetize mods which is obviously not the right solution.

Since Twitch IS a thing we have seen companies investing in streamers and that spectrum of content creation, perhaps because the existence of these 3rd party platforms makes the investment feel more safe. Team leaders from the relevant areas of streaming type content creation have regularly been invited to participate in social media revenue generating public interaction campaigns by pretty much all major industry leaders at this point.

I feel it is the elephant in the room that an entire other spectrum of content creation has thus far been completely marginalized and largely ignored by this same very profitable industry, simply for want of an equivalent platform.

EDITED FOR BREVITY

Key takeaway thus far:

• The best solution with the least risk would be a platform, like Twitch, for this slightly different spectrum of the content creation market.
• It is important to diversify incentives beyond strictly monetary (game time, cash shop tokens, etc.) based on how an individual chooses to interact with that hypothetical platform.

Replies, for convenience:

@taylorwilenskiub17_ESO - To answer your question of what benefit to ZOS, try to think of it as incentivizing rather than than compensation.

I feel too many corporate attorneys (and to an extent modern business people in general) get hung up in this concept of fervently defending ownership, to the point it almost seems instinctual.

One does get the impression given even a cursory examination of modern socioeconomics around the world that powerful people tend to see other people increasingly as a threat, something which will necessarily attempt to claim your property and tie you up in legal obligations and generally cost you money.

It is all worst case scenario fearmongering to me. I see only opportunity.

Perhaps the relevant industry leaders have made some bad investments in the past that burned them and they're just shy.

link

As someone pointed out (edited?) the best solution with the least risk would be a platform, like Twitch, for this slightly different spectrum of the content creation market.

However unlike was mentioned, I feel it is important to diversify incentives beyond strictly monetary (game time, cash shop tokens, etc.) based on how an individual chooses to interact with that hypothetical platform.

It is easily manageable and not terribly complicated to code, and the behavioral psychology is well established, which it occurs to me to mention it is also well known that while pride and recognition will motivate some of the people for some time, it is a small-slice investment strategy with diminishing returns.

But like I said if you are shy and don't care about playing the market, you might just ignore such opportunities.

link

@thadjarvis your analogy to other industries where 'modding' in some form exists is good in that it illustrates how in all these scenarios you mention 1) the provider of the services is compensated for their labor and 2) the original company is in no way liable for nor legally bound to the work.

There is very little risk in establishing a content creation sponsorship platform for specifically addon and mod authors, nor would it in any way legally or financially harm large industry leaders or even individuals to contribute in a meaningful way to the 'budget' for that platform.

The return: More quality work by more talented authors creating greater satisfaction with the products they are associated with. Having these individuals choose to remain associated with your industry over the long terms is also an undervalued benefit.

This concept of consumer satisfaction is a relevant one. For one thing, it makes the violent mood swings of industries a little less extreme. It pads the public outrage numbers and helps avoid flash mob style devaluation of assets in the short term.

There is a whole field of behavioral psychology devoted to this concept of incentives and their many benefits.

@idk this expresses what appears to be a common attitude of business in general I touched on before which I feel totally misses the point. It is about opportunity to invest for greater net benefit, not about someone trying to work some legal angle to take something from you.

There is no reason to avoid investment in a content creation platform simply based on the assumption that content creators are all out to get us. It is an adversarial attitude for which there is no motivating offense. It focuses almost exclusively on a worst-case scenario to the exclusion of the possibility for a mutual beneficial relationship.

To me that comes across as paranoid more than simply greedy, which is why I mentioned the possibility of a "once bitten twice shy" investment posture on the part of the relevant industry leaders we happen to have to work with at the moment.

link

WiseSky wrote: »

I see you ignored my Donate to An Addon Author Challenge...

Forgive me, I didn't realize it was a personal challenge. I took it as more of a general philosophy to "pay it forward."

Without wanting to go into specifics, suffice it to say I contribute substantially to the modding community. But one should probably avoid looking at it in that sort of way, just as the addon authors themselves avoid seeing it as something they expect a reward for. "Put up or shut up" is an overly simplistic and inherently adversarial approach which I do not assume was your intent.

The issue I feel transcends such lesser debates over moral character of individuals, and it is impossible to marginalize all addon authors or all business leaders or all general members of the community without knowing each of their stance personally.

The one called Buddha is reputed to have said that those who help others in need should never expect a reward beyond the helping. I do not feel major industry leaders really fit the role of "those in need" in this scenario. Another wise person once said that to refuse a gift would be to deprive someone of the joy of giving, but again it is neither here nor there.

This is mostly about the failure by 2020 of major profitable industry leaders of the hundreds-of-billions annual gaming industry to invest in an equivalent content creation and sponsorship platform for addon authors and modders.

That said I do personally maintain it is more of an issue of misplaced paranoia about "modders being out to get them" than it is an issue of mere financial greed.

link

thadjarvis wrote: »

@Dark_Lord_Kuro
...what seems outrageous is that some have noted that ZoS actively prevents creators from collecting revenue themselves.

The policies most companies use for addons including ZOS are pretty unfair to modders. I am headed out or I would link the relevant areas of the TOS but in summary:

• You are not allowed to sell mods in any form.
• You can have a donation link but can not ASK for donations (that part seems really weird).
• You can't make promises to make this mod or add that feature at certain Patreon payout levels, which defeats the whole point of Patreon and what generates revenue there. Patreon is also not useful as its market is too diversified and doesn't generate mod traffic, plus most people don't like the idea of a recurring payment system.

It does seem intentionally designed to take away any legitimate avenue for a mod author to benefit from their hours of labor.

Since they are not allowed to ASK it is completely reliant on people accidentally stumbling on that donate button. No self promotion that is necessary to actually generate revenue is allowed by the TOS, which hearkens to the poster who pointed out other areas where modders generate revenue like car body shops, where he argued it is the modder's responsibility to self promote: they literally are forbidden from doing so by the TOS. I feel almost no one knows this.

What is the consequence? A quick look at the ESOUI page will reveal that many if not most of the largest mod projects by the most talented artists end up abandoned (or in maintenance mode with nothing being added), because there is simply no way for them to generate revenue to cover the cost of their time as professionals.

The donate button is something which generates maybe $5 once in a while (often a great while), sometimes a slightly larger donation here and there, and most often spread out over YEARS where there will be nothing coming in for months at a time.

The incentive is simply not there for the talented people we actually want making mods to continue to donate their time when the world is in such a dire state economically (unless you are a billionaire) with everyone else working the "gig economy" to try and make ends meet, and having family obligations and possibly health issues to contend with, all of which cost money.

When times are good people do more charity work like this. Those times have changed.

Addons aren't created in a vacuum. They are made by real people with valuable skills who have real life obligations, and a platform for crowd-funded revenue distribution would go a long way to ensure what they do continues to be something we get to enjoy.

link

I absolutely agree with you. Compensation does not have to be solely or exclusively monetary, it could be, fame or in game currency or distinction. Like unique mounts, houses or outfits too.

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

/snip

The 1% that actually produce quality generally use it to get work in programing so they are compensated by the nature of getting work.

I'm afraid this is little more than wishful thinking. There is certainly no data I have seen to back this up, and I know most of those 1% of top ESO modders personally.

Maybe in a perfect world this might be the case, but "worked on mods" isn't winning people any resume points in the real world, even if the code they write is on a level comparable to industry standards.

I can see why one would want this to be true. No one wants to see good people getting screwed.

I hired someone who ran an EVE online corp as a manager.
I hired three people whos resumes included mod development.

Sure I might be biased. I also might hate automated resume sorting services.