Why paid mods are a bad idea.
Why paid mods are a bad idea.
It really grabs attention quickly. Many issues exist with paid modifications that are tough to control. If you took the time to read the full piece, you might see a different side.
The document highlights Valve's compensation model for paid mods. It acknowledges that paid modifications are perfectly acceptable. However, it points out several issues with how VALVE is implementing this system. The sentence can be confusing because it contrasts the idea of paid content being valid while questioning VALVE's approach to managing it.
These three aspects mainly focused on paid modifications overall.
The decision exists between paying or not. Your funds are in your hands. Let market quality lead. Selling with good curation dismisses points one and two. Point three covers essentially all mods—it's inherently risky from the start. You assess whether this risk justifies your investment.
This is just another quick reaction in the gaming world to what seems like a positive development. The first thing that comes to mind is Facebook's purchase of the Oculus team, which brought in funding to stay competitive. With all VR companies boasting multi-billion budgets and deep expertise in tech products, it’s surprising only 25% goes to modders. Why does Valve receive so much money? Probably because of the secrecy around how the remaining 75% is allocated—likely hidden under non-disclosure agreements. I’m certain Skyrim’s mod agreement will prevent others from copying its content and selling it as their own, protecting Bethesda’s interests. This matters because it suggests Valve keeps a significant profit share, possibly around 35% for Steam and 35% for Bethesda.
Some might argue this is still excessive, but consider this: being on Steam alone can generate substantial revenue simply by increasing visibility. Indie developers often sell games at discounts while leveraging Steam’s massive user base to boost sales. Mods can be a major income stream—many small studios earn the majority of their profits this way. Without Valve investing in mod support, it would be tough for creators to profit from their own work without relying on third-party platforms.
Valve’s involvement also highlights the importance of Steam’s infrastructure. The platform’s success depends on developers like you, and without its backing, mods would struggle to gain traction. It’s about fairness—ensuring creators benefit from the ecosystem they help build.
Tax considerations matter too. In the UK, VAT is a standard 20%, which could influence how splits are calculated. A simple system that accounts for these factors might be fairer than the current complexities.
Ultimately, the debate centers on whether it’s fair for companies to profit from services they provide while creators bear the costs of building and distributing their own products. If revenue streams are transparent and shared, it could encourage more innovation and investment in the community.
@ MrBushido your math abilities are lacking and your view on tax responsibilities between customers and developers/distributors is completely incorrect. It seems you're assuming something unknown about how taxes actually work in practice. You also seem to have mixed up calculations by adding percentages and subtracting parts without proper order, which breaks the rules of calculation. I understand you want a market opportunity for revenue, but right now this approach isn't sound. Perhaps we can revisit it later.
A lot of thoughts to consider here. Swapping the formula and turning them into staff will likely frustrate many and draw the wrong audience. Those who feel discouraged by others’ actions are a concern, but I’m not concerned about the “wrong crowd” point. Those selling mods will either create appealing content or sell little. The game might become too cluttered with this kind of material. This doesn’t make much sense. The only real risk is the Steam payment section getting overloaded. Otherwise, the game will load exactly what players want. And this is someone genuinely trying to do the right thing. Well, unless “well meaning” means ignoring the facts, I don’t think it’s a valid excuse. This comes from a business publication, and in a new market these kinds of challenges are sure to pop up—solutions will have to be found, but that doesn’t mean we should dismiss trying.
I think Valve/Bethesda likely began with flexibility to improve compensation for modders. If they shift their strategy, altering the agreement would be much harder, especially if their costs rise and they start collecting more. I’m not sure the division would ever reach such a level. Bethesda will always secure the larger share.
I appreciate how you challenge my perspective when trying to undermine my point. It’s all about understanding operator precedence and the math behind it. While I’ve developed 3D games from scratch and mastered trigonometry and calculus, grasping these concepts can still be tough. Now that we’ve cleared up some of the misunderstandings, let’s stay respectful. Sure, it’s possible the percentage might be adjusted later. My concern is more about how the split works and whether I’ll ever secure a stable income outside of traditional roles like at Valve or Bethesda.
I’ve also heard that Nexus mods handle the approval process for paid mods and provide some quality assurance, which might explain why the numbers seem so skewed compared to what you see on Steam. Regarding earning from modding, I’ve made some money from modding MMORPGs in the past—far less than what selling items on Steam can generate (like a few hundred pounds from addons).
My main reason for not diving into modding Skyrim right now is that I’m no longer as passionate about the game and am focusing on my own project. It might be something I revisit with future titles.