You seem to be much harsher on the modders than the companies, though, and I honestly can't see why, especially considering that you know full well that it was the companies' idea. After all, it only makes sense that such a thing would happen; the chance that enough of modders- not just big time ones, but as a whole- would say no once the idea of being compensated is introduced to them was virtually zero.
I'm equally harsh on both. You could say no if you were idealistic enough. Of course, earning a quick buck is very tempting.
Valve did this because it's a step in their goal to monopolize the PC gaming market, just like the products they've announced earlier this year. If they succeed, soon they'll have the standard OS, the standard controller, the standard store, the standard PCs which run the games, and now the standard trading place for mods. This, my friend, is the consolization of PC gaming. Valve is thinking about the long run. If they manage to drive EA and Ubisoft away or, instead, find a better way to integrate their DRM software into Steam, it'll be Valve's great win in the gaming front. If Valve's SteamOS becomes the de facto OS for gaming purposes instead of Windows, it'll be another great win. The Steam Controller being superior to the Xbox One controller for PC gaming will be another win for Valve over Microsoft. Imagine if they go even further and integrate streaming TV services into Steam, which is already a multimedia platform. Xbox One and PS4 can do it, so Valve will want to be able to do it, too.
If Valve has their way, in the future we'll all be gaming on Steam Machines/Steam Links and using Steam Controllers to play. Their moves, if successful, will change PC gaming forever. The advantage of customization will be lost in favor of a standard by which most will abide. Valve wants to be to PC gamers what Microsoft was to home computers.
And as bad as that may sound, it doesn't sound greedy to me at all. After all, the mere thought of mod monetization being introduced to a community from someone as bigtime as Valve was poisonous in and of itself. I don't blame the modders for that, they had no reason to say no. After all, Bethesda themselves were saying to these modders that they could work together and both get compensated for the hardwork of one of them. The hardwork that is rarely thanked and even recognized. Have you seen how modders are treated? It's disgusting really. Big mods are often met with complaints, requests, and unconstructive criticism among the fans- the fans! I can't count how many great mods have fallen due to the abuse that modders have faced; it's safe to say that not everyone was happy. So here comes a way that they can directly be affected by the appreciation of those that want or enjoy their mods. People give a lot of their life and put aside a lot of valuable things for their mods, so I see no reason that these people should be labeled crooks and sellouts doing this.
I have no idea what the Skyrim community is like. There's n00bs everywhere. You can't restrict access to anyone, provided they behave. Modders should ignore trolls like everyone sensible does.
And this isn't to say that I'm supporting this system. Currently, it's a mess and only works to make Valve and everyone involved look worse. I don't think this should have been released in its current state since it has so many flaws and holes that it just makes things look worse. This is made no better by Gabe Newell's recent comments and how he hopes to police the system. And, in all honesty, I'm with the popular opinion that they should have implemented a donation system instead- heck, they still could have taken a cut, but at least that would encourage people to support modders without being forced to. Worst of all, this splits the community and has caused panic among modders. As things are now, it was much better before, but my point here is that modders that do support the idea shouldn't be treated as scum.
The sad truth is that donation helps only the modder. Valve and Bethesda aren't interested in the modder's well-being, they want money and control. The system they put in place is abhorrent, but it makes sense because of what I said before: Valve provides the means to advertise and publishes the mod, and Bethesda is the maker of the game and owns all rights to it. In the past, to create a paid expansion to a game you needed to license the rights from whoever held them.
First of all, in many places you need to pay to place an ad. Moreover, the publisher takes into account the risk involved in promoting a third-party's work, especially in the case of amateur and/or first-time authors. If you try to publish a book, you won't get a favorable contract the first time around; quite the contrary. The publisher takes the largest cut, because of the risks. They spend money on printing and advertising, and they have their reputable name on the line whenever they agree to publish a first-time author.
As for mod prices, the market is still walking its baby steps. It's generally agreed, however, that few people are going to want to pay for a mod as much as they pay for DLC. The DLC has the "official" label that even the best mods lack. So, at least for now, making mods for games won't put food on anyone's plate.
To sum it up, my opinion is that, when you were able to get something for free, you sure as hell aren't going to agree that you have to pay for it. No one will settle for less rights (or, more accurately, less
power) than they currently have unless coerced to it. It's against logic. Paid mods and tight control over them don't benefit the end consumer, who could in the past grab the mod from various places without paying a dime. The modder may never even see the money if he/she doesn't profit enough. But for the modder, this isn't a big thing, because he/she was earning zero from sharing the mod anyway. If the modder is smart and doesn't see this as his/her job, but rather as a complimentary activity, he/she doesn't incur into any risks.
How strange. Mods have had to be free out of necessity, as they are technically illegal by the terms of copyright.
That's not true. Games in the past came with map building tools that allowed you to freely and legally create new content without violation of copyright. What is or isn't copyright violation depends on the game's license. And, of course, you can't monetarily use someone else's trademark without licensing the rights from them. Notice how 3D Realms (creator of Duke Nukem 3D) licensed third-party companies to build and sell custom mapsets for their games, while also being supportive of user-made freeware content.
