The team behind Killing Floor 2 has declined requests for purchased modifications.
The team behind Killing Floor 2 has declined requests for purchased modifications.
I understand your point, but as the other user mentioned, asking for money directly isn't the right approach. Many modders earn a good amount through donations. In fact, Nexus mods are planning to include donation options, making them more sustainable than direct demands.
YouTube made content accessible without charging viewers initially—it was offered freely at first. Revenue came from ads, not direct payments from users. Switching to a paid subscription model would mean users must pay to access the platform, which is quite different from its original approach.
The same rule works for aftermarket items in cars, guitars, or extra software. Back then, owning a program meant you could use it freely and even change it yourself. Now, many want their modifications removed. Odd, isn't it?
Some mods receive indirect backing from developers, and even if an update causes issues, good mods usually recover quickly. Earnings for creators come mainly from selling the game itself, not just from modding. High-quality HQ mods bring in more income than the mod itself, while low-budget projects often don’t pay well. Comparing a mod to a AAA title is unfair, and it’s easy to pirate games too. I also realize you haven’t fully read my previous message.
Why modify at all? This alters things precisely in this way. It’s the same pattern as before—just another step. If it doesn’t interest you, so be it. No one is pushing you to act. These issues are common; they already occur. Modders can decline any offer, and that’s their choice. It’s not a valid argument—they’re doing their own thing. These aren’t solid reasons, just justifications. Share what bothers you truly.
Who decides what counts as a "good HQ mod"? The rules often depend on personal taste and community standards. Paying people fairly for their effort should be based on skill and time, not just personal preferences. If a mod is considered demanding or high-quality, it shouldn't matter whether it's nude or armor-themed—what matters is the work put in.
Interesting opposing viewpoints, I wasn’t expecting that response. I understand your stance on compensating mod creators rather than focusing on game developers or Valve. 100% in favor of eliminating their profits. This situation is specifically about Steam Workshop, and if it persists, Valve will likely keep extracting value. We need to see this shift elsewhere where Valve lacks influence.
I have some HQ mods that include custom textures and animations. I don’t consider nudity mods inherently bad; they were just a poor example. If it’s challenging, maybe the creator will improve it later—he might even make another one without cost if it doesn’t work out.
We should definitely have a dedicated space to sell and share mods that’s super user-friendly, preventing others from copying us. I’m fine with the platform taking around 20% of the revenue since they handle servers and payments. Having a central hub would make it easier to discover and install mods, eliminating the need to search forums. Still, considering how tricky modding can be even in games like Minecraft, setting clear standards is essential. This is really the core challenge.