Paid mods? Or paid extra features?

[Judazzz 1,936]

12 minutes ago, MushyMushy said:

I think what rsc is getting at isn't that updates themselves are problems, it's the fact that the updates break mods when it seems like they shouldn't. I'm not really trying to rag on the game... I think it's a good game, but I don't understand why updates seem to break mods that have nothing to do with the part of the game that was updated. I play several games on Steam that have Workshop functionality, and none of them break their mods (which I usually have 100-200 of) with every update. Sometimes a mod or two might get broken or they might change the values of something so modders must adjust their stats, but it's not as bad. I would argue that a game where mods are broken frequently is not fully mod friendly. I'm certainly not saying that the game is not good for mods though.

One of the problems is that many modders go beyond what is officially supported: most of the more advanced mods (need to - iirc. the API itself is fairly limited) make use of detours to override code that was supposed to be inaccessible to modders (a bit of a naive in this day and age in which pretty much everything is hacked, deconstructed and decompiled before it's even finished), and when CO makes changes to those bits of code that are being detoured, it will in many cases cause the local code (on the mod side) that overrides the game's code to crash and burn in spectacular fashion (or rather, with bland and not very informative popups). So while CO can guarantee that code using the official API will most likely keep working fine after an update, as soon as modders touch 'unauthorized' bits, CO can't really do much about that. Again, the modding beta is a way to allow modders to test their mods against the updated core code, which is more than most developers offer, but 100% fool-proof it will never be.

[rsc204 21,866]

1 hour ago, boformer said:

it would be great if there was a way to block updates, but that comes with new problems.

For example, you would need a versioning system for the workshop that installs the right version of a mod depending on the game version.

You also can't load savegames from a newer version of the game.

It is more complex than you think, and the cloud/update system also has advantages. Many advantages, especially if you are a mod user.

Also, why is a game update once in 3 months such a big problem?

I see many of these points as disadvantages. You wouldn't need a versioning system for anything, if users could install things and retain full control thereafter of what's installed/updated. If I hadn't updated, why would I need to load save games from newer versions? All of your points are completely irrelevant, if the cloud rubbish was removed, it wouldn't matter. Wouldn't it be better to have the online interface, but retain some control. For example, you log into Steam, there are 30 updates, would you like to install them? If not, everything is just left alone.

Rebuilding my mods, fine I can handle that, it's annoying, but a cost of modding sometimes. But loosing my save files entirely, because I wanted to play with mods, that's really not acceptable and is brought about by the forced updates.

To be clear, I don't hate the game, I think at it's heart is a great fun title. I don't want this discussion to turn into a SC4 vs C:S debate either. I decided after my second save game was messed up by an update, I simply would not invest further in the title. At least until all this update nonsense is done with. It's just so unnecessary, it's the first time on PC I've had the control removed, and I simply hate the experience.

Anyhow, at this point we're really reaching outside the bounds of this topic. Lest we derail or U-Turn it entirely, I suggest if anyone wants to delve further into this side of things, that a new thread is started rather than continuing here.

[wasmic 111]

I just want to chip in with my own opinion. I would not want to pay for a mod, but I would not have a problem with chipping in, say 5 $, if a modder said "If I get 100 $ I'll make this mod". The amount of money obviously correlating with the scope of the mod and the modders skill.

[hitzu 139]

7 hours ago, boformer said:

If I had a few months to work on mods only, I could do so many things that were requested since the release. Things like larger growables, water traffic, modular roads, realistic farms or a total economic overhaul.

But someone has to pay my bills...

Then start a found-raising campain. Just be fair with possibilities of the mod, system requirements and the time needed.

[Qorten 49]

On XLNation (for Cities(X)XL, they use(d) to do a Christmas/Newyears building pack (3 or 4 buildings only, but higher than normal quality, from two or three modders). You only got access to the buildings when you donated what you could/would afford. Although that income wasn't used to pay the modders, rather to pay upkeep for the website.

Maybe that idea can be transformed into something similar for CSL modders.

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

Excerpt from C:S (Paradox) EULA

ii) only for the purpose of yours and other´s personal enjoyment, you may create, distribute and make publicly available user modifications, generally known as “user mods”, to the Game. You may not distribute the Game together with the user mod, and may not allow other users to access any paid for Game content (such as DLC or expansions) which such other End user does not have access to otherwise. Further, such user mods may not infringe any third party rights, such as intellectual property rights or any rights to privacy or publicity. It is not permitted to charge other End users or accept donations for user mods. The extent of this permission is subject to change from time to time and may be withdrawn at Paradox´s sole discretion.
 
3. Prohibited use
 
Unless otherwise provided in this EULA, you shall not
 
iv) Modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, derive source code from, disassemble, decompile or create derivative works of the Game, other than may be permitted according to applicable law;
v) Use, develop, distribute or sell cheats, automation software (bots), hacks or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Game;
vi) Exploit the Game or any of its parts for any commercial purpose, including without limitation: (a) use at a cyber café, computer gaming center or any other location-based site and/or (b) performing in-game services in exchange for payment outside the Game, e.g., power-leveling; or
vii) Otherwise use the Game in a way which is not in compliance with all applicable laws.
 
4. User Generated Content
 
Some of Paradox´s Games allows you to create and make available to other users your own created content (“User Generated Content” or “UGC”). You hereby grant Paradox and its affiliates the nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable, perpetual right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, publicly display and publicly perform your UGC, and derivative works of your UGC, in connection with the operation and promotion of the Game.
 
Paradox is under no obligation to use, distribute or continue to distribute UGC, and you understand that Paradox may restrict, or remove, your UGC for any reason.
 
You represent and warrant that the UGC, and your grant of rights in such UGC, does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation, and that the UGC is your original work of and does not infringe any third party´s intellectual property rights or any other rights.

[TPB 563]

Well that's embarrassing. Ha. I guess most of us are guilty of not having even read the EULA or conveniently forgotten about that very relevant part. I'm particularly perplexed by the prohibition to accept donations and the fact that they haven't enforced it at all, seeing as many of us do ask for donations on workshop and no one has raised an issue with it in all these months. Would be nice to hear officially from CO/Paradox what their stance is on that and why they aren't actively enforcing it.

So yeah, thats the end of that

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

HEY RandyE! Put that rock back! We did not just read that. Moderators......please delete last 2 posts...nothing to see there ssssshhhhh.

[R3V0 909]

10 hours ago, RandyE said:

Excerpt from C:S (Paradox) EULA

ii) only for the purpose of yours and other´s personal enjoyment, you may create, distribute and make publicly available user modifications, generally known as “user mods”, to the Game. You may not distribute the Game together with the user mod, and may not allow other users to access any paid for Game content (such as DLC or expansions) which such other End user does not have access to otherwise. Further, such user mods may not infringe any third party rights, such as intellectual property rights or any rights to privacy or publicity. It is not permitted to charge other End users or accept donations for user mods. The extent of this permission is subject to change from time to time and may be withdrawn at Paradox´s sole discretion.
 
3. Prohibited use
 
Unless otherwise provided in this EULA, you shall not
 
iv) Modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, derive source code from, disassemble, decompile or create derivative works of the Game, other than may be permitted according to applicable law;
v) Use, develop, distribute or sell cheats, automation software (bots), hacks or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Game;
vi) Exploit the Game or any of its parts for any commercial purpose, including without limitation: (a) use at a cyber café, computer gaming center or any other location-based site and/or (b) performing in-game services in exchange for payment outside the Game, e.g., power-leveling; or
vii) Otherwise use the Game in a way which is not in compliance with all applicable laws.
 
4. User Generated Content
 
Some of Paradox´s Games allows you to create and make available to other users your own created content (“User Generated Content” or “UGC”). You hereby grant Paradox and its affiliates the nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable, perpetual right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, publicly display and publicly perform your UGC, and derivative works of your UGC, in connection with the operation and promotion of the Game.
 
Paradox is under no obligation to use, distribute or continue to distribute UGC, and you understand that Paradox may restrict, or remove, your UGC for any reason.
 
You represent and warrant that the UGC, and your grant of rights in such UGC, does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation, and that the UGC is your original work of and does not infringe any third party´s intellectual property rights or any other rights.

It's going to be very interesting to see, how Paradox or CO will react to modders who can be "donated". If I remember right, shroomblaze was also accepting donations, yet CO worked with him. 

The trade-off would be, removing "modders can't request donation" part from EULA but prohibiting any payware mods. That way, people will continue to create and ask OPTIONAL donations for their hard work, and the community will stay together in and around Steam Workshop. Sure, some modders will stop posting content and leave Steam Workshop (perhaps create their own place where they will charge people for mods) but if I've ever seen anything on Internet, it's the fact that no one ever is unreplaceable. 

 

 

[OwiHH 240]

If i donate someone i donate him because he is my friend not because he builds awsome content for any game i or he possibly have.

 

[Judazzz 1,936]

Don't you guys think CO and/or Paradox would have intervened ages ago if they really wanted to suppress donations? I mean, donate-links have been included in Workshop item descriptions since pretty much the very first day, and I refuse to believe that it took more than a week before CO/Paradox were aware of that. I'm no lawyer, but I think those inclusions in the EULA are primarily intended as a judicial fail-safe, so they have something to refer to in case serious abuse or irregularities would occur in the Workshop.

[boformer 3,169]

3 hours ago, TPB said:

Well that's embarrassing. Ha. I guess most of us are guilty of not having even read the EULA or conveniently forgotten about that very relevant part. I'm particularly perplexed by the prohibition to accept donations and the fact that they haven't enforced it at all, seeing as many of us do ask for donations on workshop and no one has raised an issue with it in all these months. Would be nice to hear officially from CO/Paradox what their stance is on that and why they aren't actively enforcing it.

So yeah, thats the end of that

The EULA is not enforceable in many countries of europe.

As long as the mod is available for free (so you are not paying for the product), I see no problems with donations or crowdfunding.

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

Sorry. I initially used some kind of strong language initially on this thread that could be taken as a bit hostile, but I more so intended it to get a strong point across, and yes, I was not at first aware that this thread referred to C:S alone, and I do intend to make my next project making BATS and mods for SC4 --which will be a lot of work.  As well, I do have C:S installed and haven't used it for quite a awhile and remember enjoying it for the beautiful cam angles.  Keep up the good work.  I like the C:S CJs  

[Turjan 1,048]

Regarding the donation aspect, I would suggest not to ask. That way they can just pretend they don't know of anything.

It's different in situations where you ask for a fee for mods or give mod access only to people who donate (although I also know the latter cases exist) without a contract with CO/Paradox. In principle, CO/Paradox would be forced to issue a C&D or even sue, or they risk losing their trademark for C:S (trademarks that are not enforced become void).

I think pretty much everything else has been said about this already in this thread. The Skyrim situation is a warning example in this regard. That one didn't turn bad because of the user outcry (that was expected and seen as irrelevant), but because members of the Skyrim modding community tore each other apart over these issues. Formerly free mods were pulled from the workshop and replaced by paid versions. Then many paid mods appeared that had dependencies from other people. Some of the makers of those dependencies had very strong feelings regarding their mods being free, but they disliked that others used the fruit of their work to make money. They first tried to exclude their work from being used in paid mods, but had soon to discover that Steam Workshop rules do not allow for that. Some were outraged and pulled their mods completely. The whole thing came crashing down after that. Also, the whole modding community was in shambles.

Let's see whether Bethesda will try this again. They will invalidate many (most?) mods with an update to the game at the end of the year. The conditions were 30% Steam (the standard fee)/45% Bethesda (IP holder)/25% modder. I wonder whether the CO deal is similar.

[TPB 563]

41 minutes ago, Turjan said:

Regarding the donation aspect, I would suggest not to ask. That way they can just pretend they don't know of anything.

It's different in situations where you ask for a fee for mods or give mod access only to people who donate (although I also know the latter cases exist) without a contract with CO/Paradox. In principle, CO/Paradox would be forced to issue a C&D or even sue, or they risk losing their trademark for C:S (trademarks that are not enforced become void).

I think pretty much everything else has been said about this already in this thread. The Skyrim situation is a warning example in this regard. That one didn't turn bad because of the user outcry (that was expected and seen as irrelevant), but because members of the Skyrim modding community tore each other apart over these issues. Formerly free mods were pulled from the workshop and replaced by paid versions. Then many paid mods appeared that had dependencies from other people. Some of the makers of those dependencies had very strong feelings regarding their mods being free, but they disliked that others used the fruit of their work to make money. They first tried to exclude their work from being used in paid mods, but had soon to discover that Steam Workshop rules do not allow for that. Some were outraged and pulled their mods completely. The whole thing came crashing down after that. Also, the whole modding community was in shambles.

Let's see whether Bethesda will try this again. They will invalidate many (most?) mods with an update to the game at the end of the year. The conditions were 30% Steam (the standard fee)/45% Bethesda (IP holder)/25% modder. I wonder whether the CO deal is similar.

Ok this is beyond the point of this thread but I was under the distinct impression that the new version of Skyrim is actually a separate game, we've been told we can still use our old, heavily modded version of Skyrim alongside the remaster.

 

Coming back to the issue at hand; I agree that we should probably just not say anything, look the other way and carry on with life as usual

[Turjan 1,048]

15 minutes ago, TPB said:

Ok this is beyond the point of this thread but I was under the distinct impression that the new version of Skyrim is actually a separate game, we've been told we can still use our old, heavily modded version of Skyrim alongside the remaster.

I guess so. I was thinking of the situation that, as the new version is a separate game, they can basically start from a blank slate with that.

17 minutes ago, TPB said:

Coming back to the issue at hand; I agree that we should probably just not say anything, look the other way and carry on with life as usual

Yup, let sleeping dogs lie.

[rsc204 21,866]

1 hour ago, Turjan said:

It's different in situations where you ask for a fee for mods or give mod access only to people who donate (although I also know the latter cases exist) without a contract with CO/Paradox. In principle, CO/Paradox would be forced to issue a C&D or even sue, or they risk losing their trademark for C:S (trademarks that are not enforced become void).

Are sure you really understand what a trademark is? A trademark simply covers a product or company name. It's totally correct to say that Trademarks that are not tightly controlled by the owner, can end up invalidating a clam to a given mark.

However, an EULA is not even remotely similar. It's a contract that you sign to accept the terms and conditions of using a product, usually one with software. CO can sit on their hands as long as they like. Should the day they decide to take action come, every penny is theirs if they want it, you agreed to it.

Of course we all know that many EULA's aren't above board and contain conditions for everything. Such over-arching contracts tend to come unstuck in courtrooms. But the beauty of them is simply that most problems never make it to court. If CO/Paradox's lawyers sent you a cease and desist order, would you really defy them? The potential cost of going up against a corporation, even if you win, is outside the realm of most peoples finances. So on the day they send the C&D, if they also ask for their money, most people would simply succumb to a letter from a lawyer and pay up, rather than risk taking it to court. Especially when the very agreement they signed/agreed too, explicitly prohibits the action you are trying to defend. Sure...

2 hours ago, boformer said:

The EULA is not enforceable in many countries of europe.

But, in such matters it rarely has to be. How far would you fight to defend yourself, even if you believed you were in the right? All the odds are against you, win or lose, these things cost a fortune to fight. Imagine Steam getting in on the action (legally), you'd be mad to defy a corporate entity with their resources in court. Wouldn't surprise me if Steam also don't permit you to make money from mods.

You can hide donations, to a point. If regular payments of a significant value keeps being added to your bank accounts, which includes PayPal. Then your local tax authorities will likely catch up with you eventually for their share too.

I agree, I think CO/Paradox/Steam are turning a blind eye. But if we are talking about modding switching to a funded activity, even if only a small percentage were paying, the sums of money are not going to remain unnoticed for long.

[Turjan 1,048]

16 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Are sure you really understand what a trademark is? A trademark simply covers a product or company name. It's totally correct to say that Trademarks that are not tightly controlled by the owner, can end up invalidating a clam to a given mark.

However, an EULA is not even remotely similar. It's a contract that you sign to accept the terms and conditions of using a product, usually one with software. CO can sit on their hands as long as they like. Should the day they decide to take action come, every penny is theirs if they want it, you agreed to it.

I assumed that was clear. If you charge for a C:S mod, you make money off their trademark, independent from what the EULA says. I was just trying to make clear why they can ignore voluntary donations but cannot ignore paid mods that are not sold with their explicit agreement.

I'm also sure that there are community members that have crossed a line by making access to their mods dependent on a donation, because that's basically a sale.

[rsc204 21,866]

11 minutes ago, Turjan said:

If you charge for a C:S mod, you make money off their trademark

Legally speaking, no. You are using their IP without permission to do so, which is much easier to sue for, especially with respect of the EULA. The only time you'd have a trademark infringement would be if you named something Cities Skylines, or very similar and made money from it.

13 minutes ago, Turjan said:

I was just trying to make clear why they can ignore voluntary donations but cannot ignore paid mods that are not sold with their explicit agreement.

Nope, they can ignore both. They are still free to come back at you later, if they so wish. I'm not saying they will, just that technically it's there.

The point is, the EULA are their terms and conditions (CO/Pardox), they can choose to enforce them or not, as they please. Neither action prejudices their entitlement to take action for a breach of the EULA. Subject to the time limits in force in your country for taking legal action, they would have a valid case you'd almost certainly have to at least defend.

[Turjan 1,048]

Okay. But we agree that paid mods that go not through CO/Paradox are not a good idea from a legal point of view, I think.

[rsc204 21,866]

I think you'd be skating on thin ice, certainly.

[R3V0 909]

5 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Legally speaking, no. You are using their IP without permission to do so, which is much easier to sue for, especially with respect of the EULA. The only time you'd have a trademark infringement would be if you named something Cities Skylines, or very similar and made money from it.

Nope, they can ignore both. They are still free to come back at you later, if they so wish. I'm not saying they will, just that technically it's there.

The point is, the EULA are their terms and conditions (CO/Pardox), they can choose to enforce them or not, as they please. Neither action prejudices their entitlement to take action for a breach of the EULA. Subject to the time limits in force in your country for taking legal action, they would have a valid case you'd almost certainly have to at least defend.

They WILL come back at you. IMHO, SB's payware assets is a first step, let's say a test, for the upcoming projects of CO. If it works, they will probably will do more (they already stated on the announcement), meaning more assets and mods will become payware by the praise of CO. Anyone who is asking "donate" or even having such links in their assets will simply be removed from the Steamworkshop, because they don't comply with EULA, which was there for years. 

They haven't come back at people, because Paradox nor Colossal Order weren't in payware asset business before. Now they are. Similar to Skyrim, they will probably make this "payware mods" idea happen in upcoming months, if it gathers enough support or interest. 

[rsc204 21,866]

Great, sounds like modding will be monetised if we like it or not. Well if that happens, the first person to PM me their Steam Details can have my copy of the game.

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

It would be such a waste of time for them to come at content creators because they have a donate button even though technically they can....the amount of donations is so low it's like why bother. If content creators found themselves rolling in money through donations then.....

[rsc204 21,866]

Perhaps this snippet I found is interesting in terms of this topic

Quote

I asked Morello what Colossal Order’s thoughts were on a community member monetising their mods: “As a developer we can’t directly plan for or support every kind of modding, but when you’re putting assets on the Workshop for free, it’s perfectly understandable that when someone is spending a lot of their time making very high quality assets for the game, they would want to get some money out of it. So we completely understand why, and I don’t personally think it’s a very bad idea, it’s just something that’s very specific to the player: are they willing to pay for something on top of the cost of the game?

“I don’t see any problems with that, but I don’t know how the community would react if everyone started doing the same. I’m not sure if modding would be as successful if everything had to be paid for, even if it was a very small amount. We’ll see in the future where it goes. I think the core idea is not bad, to ask for a little money if the quality is really good.”

Source

[mutton noir 170]

On 8/31/2016 at 4:01 PM, boformer said:

I partially agree with You. I'm developing mods in my free time and I'm having a lot of fun. That's about 30% of the time.

Providing support/bugfixes is not so fun, and there are many impatient/angry people which are making it worse. That's 70% of the time. I guess that's something I would prioritize a lot more if I was paid.

You are right that the are thousands of workshop items, but only a few of them are (heavy) mods. There are only a few mod developers, and the current mods are just scratching the surface of the modding capabilities.

If I had a few months to work on mods only, I could do so many things that were requested since the release. Things like larger growables, water traffic, modular roads, realistic farms or a total economic overhaul.

But someone has to pay my bills...

I agree with you Bo, We operate in a capitalist system- for good or bad- where people are paid in exchange for the goods, services or skills they provide. The market will usually determine the fee. The internet is of course founded on a very different principle. This has seriously challenged the established capitalist model. "Free" services still require the time effort skill and professionalism of the originator. People need to live and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. The internet has created millions of users who consume vast amounts of free stuff instantly and on a daily basis. They consume at a rate faster than the producers can replenish their product. Consumers have unrealistically high expectations as a result- unwillingness to pay for product yet expecting high quality service/item and impatience- "I want it yesterday". 

I also agree that "quality assurance" isn't high on the priority list of the Steam Workshop or sites like Wikipedia. There is a lot of rubbish out there! The best stuff is excellent and mostly created by folks in their spare time which is remarkable. In my opinion they should receive proper recognition and financial reward. The system as it exists makes this a struggle.

[OwiHH 240]

Im totaly agree here Mutton.

I have Steam for 10 Years now but never came to a point like im now with Cities Skylines, where the Workshopsystem drasticly reached it capability.

You need the workshop to make the game 500% more enjoyable. But to filter all the crap content it takes alot effort. It couldt be way easy if the system wouldt get a update for games that are in highly use and need of the workshop. The update wouldt include a bonus reward programm like donations or trade money for steamtrade or what the hek i know. At least we got a rating system!

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I read the Paradox EULA and was unclear when describing it so @Bad Peanut jumped upon my ambiguity and offered an inappropriate (for the context) refutation.

On 7/9/2016 at 0:25 PM, OcramsRzr said:

I admit that I was rude and disrespectful towards a former modder who created quality assets.

 

Now for some clarification.

Fact: [Custom] content creators [for Cities: Skylines] forfeit all rights to their creations upon uploading to the Steam Workshop.

In other words, anyone can do anything (besides charge money) to any [C:Sl] asset on the Steam Workshop without any legal repercussions. However, it breaks contracts to reupload unaltered content. Changing geometry, adding an LOD, adding illumination and snow maps, and changing names makes it impossible for action to be taken against the "remixer" on Steam.

Fact: By bulk, a vast minority (or possibly a majority) of [C:Sl] workshop content is slightly tweaked reuploads of previously made content.

Ethics: Crediting the original author is "the right thing to do" but is unneeded because nothing on the workshop can have any additional intellectual property license (such as CC attribution)

Fact: Sky [sic] Storme creates 'Let's Play' videos and maintains a website to host all the mods and assets he uses. He allows others to use them as well.

Opinion: I believe that Sky [sic] is doing a good public service by providing a copy of all the mods he uses. I think he even uploads his cities but I never used his site.

Fact: Mass deletion by former modders is an extremely rare occurrence. Asking permission to improve and continue support for their content has yet to be met with approval. However, as previously stated, approval is unneeded.

Opinion: I believe that content creators do a public service by improving assets of inactive (and I consider mass-deleters in the same category) modders and providing support for future users.

Fact: My Surface cannot run Cities: Skylines with high quality textures so I can only publish full quality mods from my desktop, which I don't often have access to. I'm also a perfectionist so I have only uploaded a map to the workshop.

I decided not to argue my case using the Paradox EULA as evidence because I didn't want to sound rude. However, I love being vindicated!

 

*My idea to improve assets by mass-deletion rage-quitters by copying them from Skye's site (which is down but effectively replaced by a Russian site) is rather moot because I cannot personally upload them. However, I'm still willing to work with someone who can upload the improved assets at full quality.

  Edited September 3, 2016 by OcramsRzr  
*Update

[Bad Peanut 826]

On 04/09/2016 at 8:08 AM, OcramsRzr said:

I read the Paradox EULA and was unclear when describing it so @Bad Peanut jumped upon my ambiguity and offered an inappropriate (for the context) refutation.

I decided not to argue my case using the Paradox EULA as evidence because I didn't want to sound rude. However, I love being vindicated!

 

*My idea to improve assets by mass-deletion rage-quitters by copying them from Skye's site (which is down but effectively replaced by a Russian site) is rather moot because I cannot personally upload them. However, I'm still willing to work with someone who can upload the improved assets at full quality.

um I don't know what you're trying to prove by tagging me, but in any case my refutation was about how much of an arsewipe it is to be if you go around ignoring an individual's creative rights to their assets, their rights to not have their work copied and reposted on the workshop and their rights to remove any of their creative content from the workshop if they so choose.

Sure you can disregard those rights, but it makes you a jerk and you're violating Valve corporation's EULA not paradox's (although I'm sure there will be something in paradox's about it too)

 

Your above quote is tackling a different issue - whether it's ok to be a jerk when it comes to other people's creative content. You presented those 'facts' which turned out to be bull$%&^!, and I quoted the Valve and Steam EULA and T&Cs to show you how wrong you were. Congratulations.

 

This thread is now discussing whether a creator who accepts donations is breaking paradox's EULA (which judging from the above discussion could certainly be the case)

It would actually be interesting to see what paradox do about it in the coming months if they do decide to continue a payware scheme for some modders.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. Paywalls on mods are not allowed.

2. FHI forced XLNation to remove its tiny situational paywall so it's possible litigation from Paradox might follow attempts.

3. Many assets on the C:Sl workshop are tweaked copies of what was at some point uploaded to the workshop.

4. Description and reviews are one of the only ways to tell certain copies apart from the originals because it's remarkably easy to open a file, change some lines, copy the slightly changed content to a new project, and upload without any metadata to automatically credit the original author. I have yet to hear of these mods being taken down because it's easy to argue that the reuoload is actually inspired by the original and not derivative art.

5. I won't directly upload any copies or derivative art of anything not vanilla to the Workshop and I won't upload assets in the foreseeable future. I might upload my poorly textured originals to the Workshop with directions to replace textures and give free permission to create derivatives.

6. My public reaction earlier was rude and uncalled for.

7. Depending on how much money I have on September 29th, I might donate to those who create custom content I like or use.

8. Donations directly to custom content creators No-Strings-Attached is fine because the money is a gift and not compensation for mods.

9. I hope that we the community of CSl players could support the custom content creators with small donations, in addition to consistently giving honestly positive reviews.

  Edited September 5, 2016 by OcramsRzr  
Happy for ShroomBlaze, cooperative with information freedom fighters