Isn't it fantastic? I was so blown away. It perfectly replicates that nostalgic NES feel.

Really is.

Cinemassicre did a recent video on the Battle Toads XBone crossover: https://youtu.be/rrSbdeW3_hI?t=430

We are getting to the point where I can't play new games :(

Well yeah, but the PCs that could run last gen's games were around at the beginning of the generation too. My meager PC spilled over into this generation too, so I think I got a good run.

I think it's weird since I don't really have an interest in the XBox consoles.

It isn't, not at all. That controller is amazing whether you want the console or not.

Not on PC. You can't even buy it. It was such a hack job they pulled it from Steam.

I must be losing my mind. I just said what half of your previous message was. I didn't see that detail at all on the first read.

Right now I am getting an error going to the Steam page for workshop paid content. If you want to read it, check this Google cached page.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4rm-3WjvEmQJ:steamcommunity.com/workshop/aboutpaidcontent/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I think what Valve is doing is ultimately good. We have all seen how people can make skins for games like Team Fortress 2, DoTA 2 and CS Go and how well people seem to love that stuff. It seems similar here but implemented in a way that, for now, people don't seem to like.

I like the idea of people making some content for a game and selling it if they want. I also like the idea of someone giving away content for free if they want. I don't mind a split going to the people that made the game but 40%?

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--xTHJWLch--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/18lme3q8hy4l3jpg.jpg

I know Valves 30% split is sacrosanct but they could always double split that with Bethesda so 15% Valve / 15% Bethesda. Regardless, i'd like to see more go to the mod creators.

I think the other thing that people don't like is that the game they loved is now broken for them w/o paying. That is pretty bullshit but I understand why they did it. They could have done nothing, which is fine but Skyrim is such a huge mod game that starting with it made sense. They could have said everything in the workshop is free and all NEW stuff could optionally be paid but that would mean some creators uploading duplicate mods, which isn't great. OR they could have said, everyone that had this mod gets it for free and new folk need to pay, which would get around your broken game issue.

Regardless of how this shakes out(I actually trust that Valve will eventually do the right thing here) I don't find the idea of some creators charging for user generated content to be offensive. The thought that someone could make a bit of money releasing things people love seems like a good idea to me. Valve is becoming a store for traditionally generated content as much as for it's users and whereas this step is a bit strange it's nice to see.

Also if most modders find this offensive there are websites where they can release mods for free if they want. This isn't a terrible solution as then it puts a lot of importance on federating PC gaming which is really being owned by Valve right now. I love Valve but it's good to have a healthy ecosystem that isn't one silo.

I think that is a good point. The mod community still exists though right? I mean, maybe some people are leaving it over this but it will still mostly be around? That said, destroying your save is bad and yeah, doing this to something already out is less than stellar.

Maybe they should have hit up Rockstar and done it for GTA V.

Gabe responded on Reddit about this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33uplp/mods_and_steam/

"On Thursday I was flying back from LA. When I landed, I had 3,500 new messages. Hmmm. Looks like we did something to piss off the Internet.

Yesterday I was distracted as I had to see my surgeon about a blister in my eye (#FuchsDystrophySucks), but I got some background on the paid mods issues.

So here I am, probably a day late, to make sure that if people are pissed off, they are at least pissed off for the right reasons"

"Yeah nexus still exists, but some modders are pulling their stuff from the nexus so that you have to get the paid version on Steam. Unfortunately it's a lot of the big awesome mods that are going paid only."

Yeah, I bet some people do want to make money on what they create. I am not sure what I would do if I were them.

"At best, there's a major rift in the mod community, and a ton of the amazing content people have been using for years is now behind a paywall."

Yeah I bet there is a rift. Over time paid / free mods will be a thing and it will sort itself out I just hope Skyrim endures, it's a great game and it's sad to see people have problems playing it.

I don't know if the original creator should keep the bulk of revenue for a mod but a halfy half split seems reasonable to me. Thing is Valve takes it's cut, Bethesda takes its 45% and now the modder has 25%? I guess it's better than nothing but it's not amazing.

As to people not wanting to pay for things that were previously free, yeah you know I don't know how to address that. I don't partake in a ton of mods and if they all went pay I don't think it would bother me too much. If someone charges money for what they create seems to be up to them and I don't care about playing every bit of content in a game for $0.

Garry from Garry's Mod has some thoughts on the situation:

http://garry.tv/2015/04/24/paying-for-mods/

"Is it the modders mod that's making the money, or is it the original IP that drives that market? People aren't commissioning artists to paint Spider-man, simply because they are great artists. They are also, and more prominantly, paying for a composition of the character, one of which the artist likely had absolutely no hand in creating."

I agree. I also think there is a place for remix culture and it's not bad to figure out a system where everyone gets paid. For me, it's get a bit more hazy when certain people don't want to allow fan contributions OR remix creations. For instance, in music, anyone can cover a song and you don't need the authors permission to do that. If you do that and make money from it there is a royalty that is due to the composer. I kind of wish we had a system like that for most stuff and it seems Valve is sort of allowing the creators to set that which is nice but also problematic as the split seems a bit uneven.

"If I'm laying the groundwork, and someone else is making more money than me because of my work, is that fair?"

I heard this the other day and it seemed good. Not really what you mean, but it's about fairness and thinking about others having enough. For me, I am not as worried about Bethesda and want to see mod creators get a nicer slice.

http://www.stuffeddrunkandmerry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/neighbor.jpg

"scrypt: Would you think it more fair that there was a sliding scale of profit distribution the more successful a product is, essentially taking responsibility away from the creator to be fair, and placing a restriction on excess profits? Isn't that basically capitalism vs. socialism? Is that what this is all about?"

It's not socialism at all, it's just a system where people that create stuff all get paid appropriately. Some people might get super rich from it, nothing wrong with that. Having the government decide the split seems good but often isn't because when such a system needs updating and there is little political will to do it, things suffer. So I like Valves approach but as we see with Let's Plays and YouTube where the company decides the split, it gets a bit uneven(Looking at Nintendo).

So yeah, I don't know what the proper system is myself but this seems like a good first step. I think that we will see some game developers giving all the money to mod creators and some getting more. I think we might see more or less content based on the rev split and I am curious how that will all work out.

I'll ignore the Star Wars getting changes from Lucas post release thing, not because I don't have an opinion but because I want to keep this about mods and since we love Star Wars I could see this conversation changing

That said, it seems OK to me(and the courts) that you can modify the things you own if you want. Might mess up a warranty or break it, but it seems you can change things you own. It get strange with digital goods, but I am pretty sure I have the spirt of the law right when I say that if I want to change something for my own use that should be fine. Distribution gets tricky(as you say) so Valve making a system like this with the original owners in mind is great.

"Performance of someone else's work in public is technically an infringement on copyright law, and the license holder could definitely take action."

I was talking about covers, which you're right doesn't quite address the modding issue specifically. I've covered songs at a live gig before, I think I owe someone some money but I never paid it. My apologies to U2 or whomever

That said, I still side with creators and people getting paid but I am not sure what I think when someone wants to lock what they do down and not allow any outside contributions to it. On one hand that seems wrong to me but on the other hand I don't mind granting a limited monopoly on something so people can sell it(the basic premise of copyright as I understand it but IANAL).

"That's an interesting statement. Feelings aside, do you think they should have the right to do this?"

Ugh. As a human I don't know how to seperate feelings from myself because they are part of my experience. Some say they can do it and I think they are not being accurate.

That said, I think in certain contexts ... I guess.

But I heard some musician say they wanted to lock down their music so certain people couldn't cover the music. I don't want to get into the context of the person that said it because it's not something I want to talk about BUT the notion of excluding certain people from that seems really wrong to me.

In the case of covering a song I think it's better to allow anyone to do it and charge a royalty.

In the case of a review video on YouTube I think it's better to allow them to show clips from said video if the majority of the work is original and charge a royalty.

In the case of a Let's Play video I think it's better to allow it and in the cases where the author wishes charge a royalty.

In the case of video game mods I think it's better to allow it and where the author wishes charge a royalty.

But as to the question of locking a work down from all outside contributions entirely? I guess so but it seems against the notion how stuff is created, which is to build on the work of others.

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

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

More than likely why I wasn't selected for Jury duty. That said I bet is was because I made the entire court room laugh and the lawyer wasn't. It was fun, but you know I didn't get to serve and that bummed me out. Always next time.

That said, I can't separate myself from emotions but I can make choices based on rules. I do that all the time.

"Well seriously, unless you're a Vulcan you can't. And even if you're a Vulcan you can't always. :)"

https://longboxgraveyard.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/spock.jpg

"And Jon, a brief aside-- your pic-- did it bug you how different NewSpock is from OldSpock in how his emotions are controlled?"

Yes, it does. One of the reasons people loved Spock is because he was the guy that could keep it cool most of the time. HE WAS THE BEST OF US!

"This isn't like programming, where open-source is a cool thing. "Open source" art isn't generally considered cool, especially among struggling artists."

Creative Commons stuff is the closest thing I can think of when I think of Open Source art, and I think lots of it is cool. That said we both care about people making a livable wage and if they can do that with what they do, the better.

"Working from inspiration and getting better at your craft by learning from someone else's work is an entirely different conversation."

True, but when we consider how stuff is made realizing that we don't build in a bubble helps when we try to think about what kinds of laws to work inside.

"People are saying this is the death knell for Steam and that's going way over the top, it's nothing of the sort. But I hope they do actually start working on their problems."

Death knell for Steam? heh. That said, I imagine they will improve, they seem to be getting better every year.

"I'm betting, and this could be me being totally naive, that once Galaxy drops from GoG, you might see Valve a little more active on maintenance front."

I used to just want to own games in one place(Steam) but now I really like that I have quite the catalog on GOG, Humble, Origin and Ubi. I might not love Ubi's system but it's nice to know I don't have all my eggs in one basket. I like GOG so I wish them well and hope for a nice client launch I can try out soon.

What kinds of support issues should they address? I've had support issues in the past and they took a bit to get back to me but seemed to help me out. Are you talking about games running at all or people not figuring out how to work Steam?

1. Grandfathering in existing Steam mod subscribers to not require them to pay.

2. Not doing it.

3. Heavily modifying the Skyrim save system to... OK this is nutty impractical.

Here is a Lawrence Lessig talk on laws that choke creativity. It's about remix culture and is from 2007 so it's somewhat dated. That said I think it's relevant to this discussion as companies are now allowing mods(I think they are kind of remix) to be monetized by mod creators and this seems like a good development if not implemented strangely in the case of Skyrim.

http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity?language=en

Good article from a perspective of a modder who would like to be paid.

http://www.pcgamer.com/im-a-modder-i-deserve-compensation/

I've seen some posts where people are saying "This is what we want, we want modders to get jobs working for studios." I mean, I don't think that's the dream for everyone. In the case of this modder, it's not his at all.

"Why does the date on that article say April 26, 2011?"

It's says "on hour ago" to me, but it could be some bug.

"What is the criteria for posting on PC Gamer? It reads more like a blog post."

I guess i'd compare it to an opinion piece like you'd see in a newspapers opinion column. I don't mind a diversity of opinions on a particular topic, not sure where he urged anyone to abandon a point of view, but I sort of lightly read it.

As to what you said about Lessig, I hear you. I mostly agree with his points but I can see where you are coming from. If culture has become worse because of technology in the ways in which you say, that may be true. That said, compared to earlier decades i've been part of there are tons more options and I think, in general, I am pretty happy with the quality of creative works. I think the market is in a "sequel-itus" sort of focus which can be good(loved the new Dawn of the Apes movie) but can also be as you say, rehashes and not very good.

Bethesda wrote a bit about why they are doing paid mods.

http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyrim-mods-on-steam/

"This was in 2012 and we had many questions, but only one demand. It had to be open, not curated like the current models. At every step along the way with mods, we have had many opportunities to step in and control things, and decided not to. We wanted to let our players decide what is good, bad, right, and wrong. We will not pass judgment on what they do. We’re even careful about highlighting a modder on this blog for that very reason.

Three years later and Valve has finally solved the technical and legal hurdles to make such a thing possible, and they should be celebrated for it. It wasn’t easy. They are not forcing us, or any other game, to do it. They are opening a powerful new choice for everyone.

We believe most mods should be free. But we also believe our community wants to reward the very best creators, and that they deserve to be rewarded. We believe the best should be paid for their work and treated like the game developers they are. But again, we don’t think it’s right for us to decide who those creators are or what they create."

"But we underestimated the differences between our previously successful revenue sharing models, and the addition of paid mods to Skyrim's workshop. We understand our own game's communities pretty well, but stepping into an established, years old modding community in Skyrim was probably not the right place to start iterating. We think this made us miss the mark pretty badly, even though we believe there's a useful feature somewhere here. "

Right. I hope they continue the model with some other game though, it's not a bad way to roll if it's the right fit. Travis, are you happy with this? Will you come back to Skyrim? I hope your game isn't forever hosed.

http://www.dorkly.com/post/74126/gamers-are-pissed?ref=comics

I was fine with LOST's ending, especially if you have seen the epilogue. I don't know why it was never aired on TV and only in the extras.

I think waiting seems like a good idea too. Many people seem to have had a good experience with it, but my PC isn't quite up to specs with yours. That said, I look forward to picking it up and playing it as max resolution as I can.

As far as the game/story goes this is what we got with the PS3/360 version right? No new content as far as this release goes right? Did they do any DLC for GTAV?

You can hunt in the game? That sounds fun. From the look of things it appears pretty involved too.

http://gta.wikia.com/Hunting

So does the single player campaign take 79 hours to complete or is that your game time doing other stuff too?

In-engine footage. How. How is that done int he game engine?

Yeah, it says Sony at the front and I have a hard time that's a PS4. Unless they are doing some crazy engine magic or something.

MAYBE this is some ultra PC or whatever but even then.

Will this game look something like this? Sure. Just like it? Uhm, I don't know. Maybe.

Right I know it wasn't actual gameplay, but it was done using the engine they're using, and it was spectacular. I certainly wouldn't expect that kind of gameplay.