What if the MODs on PC were all paid?

What if the MODs on PC were all paid?

One of the biggest advantages of playing on PC is definitely related to mods. Previously intended to circulate only among a small circle of people, thanks to the advent of the Internet they have now become commonplace and it is not uncommon to find some that radically change a game. If some publishers and developers are still reluctant to the total implementation (as in the case of Rockstar Games and the online components of GTA 5 and Red Dead Redemption 2), now many development studios are releasing kits to program them since day one. new. And many creators have already tried to make a profit, rightly so: the mods, on the other hand, are nothing more than the result of a long work of enthusiasts who make available their time to improve sections or even add new features. A question arises: should we start paying for these contents?

Cyberpunk 2077 becomes a survival thanks to a mod. Right to use it for free? It is not easy to find an answer. Some programmers, graphic designers and enthusiasts have already found the answer to their question and make their mods available on their Patreons. Paying a monthly fee supports the creator, which allows all subscribers (i.e. those who support the processing of mods) to enjoy some add-ons such as Reshade and tools to implement artisanal Photo Modes. Others, however, continue to distribute their content exclusively for free, relying on sites that act as collectors, such as Nexus and ModDB. The feeling that hovers around certain creations, however, makes us believe that in the future a paid distribution model cannot be so distant.| ); }

If we think that a qualitatively valid mod must be paid for, there are two obstacles to this process. The first is obviously related to who establishes that an additional content is worthy of gain. Differentiating between some creations can be a discriminatory process and risks cutting out some creators who feel they should be paid for their time spent implementing additional content. The second, on the other hand, is linked to copyright: technically, despite being original creations, all add-ons created by modders are actually based on source code and on non-owned assets. A good way to go this route could be to rely on Bethesda's Creation Club, where modders submit applications and once accepted they can begin creating weapons, clothes, characters, creatures and game worlds. In that case it is the publisher and developer who pays, without this final cost falling on the users. The problem is that there is only one Creation Club and it is hardly sustainable for smaller companies.

A solution to the problem could be to implement marketplaces inside the games themselves, obviously hosted by the development studios. The creators could then register, be approved and start selling their creations in an internal, controlled market. Among other things, the problem related to who can and who cannot make a profit from his work, as well as copyright, would also be solved. In a system where the developers have the last word on the elements that are loaded, it is very likely (indeed, practically impossible) to find a nude mode or the much talked about Thomas Train. All creations should be original and undergo a strict selection process.

It remains to clarify a key point of the whole discussion, that is the reaction of the community. In the past, Valve and Bethesda really tried to get the mods paid and the community didn't welcome the changes to the Steam Workshop. It was 2015 and in the world of video games it almost seems like a geological era has passed, given the many changes that this industry has undergone. If users are really opening up to Web 3.0 and the world of NFTs, perhaps today thinking of having to pay for a qualitatively valid mod after being bought from an internal marketplace for a particular game would not be so crazy.

Powered by Blogger.