The ethics of modding

[Duke John]

This post and some others following may seem be grabbed from air. The reason is that they have been split from another post.

Isn't it ironic that there are countless rants against CA stating that they should have tested the game properly before shipping it, but when a mod is confronted with the same complaints it is being protected that no one is forced to download it.

I think that modders should make it very clear that the mod is still in beta phase and that the bugs are still being ironed out. Or when the modders release the mod as completed then they should test it properly before releasing it. I know pretty well how much time goes into a mod, but IMO that argument can be overused. Normal players expect a working mod, not even more bugs, and if numerous patches for obvious problems arrive within the first week then somebody hasn't done his job properly.

[Turbo]

Isn't it ironic that there are countless rants against CA stating that they should have tested the game properly before shipping it, but when a mod is confronted with the same complaints it is being protected that no one is forced to download it.

I think that modders should make it very clear that the mod is still in beta phase and that the bugs are still being ironed out. Or when the modders release the mod as completed then they should test it properly before releasing it. I know pretty well how much time goes into a mod, but IMO that argument can be overused. Normal players expect a working mod, not even more bugs, and if numerous patches for obvious problems arrive within the first week then somebody hasn't done his job properly.

Thats a good point Duke John. Expectations are usually lower for mods in that they are 'labors of love'.

[tommh]

This thread was originally about the level of realism in the mod. Bugs or level of bugs that are exceptable in a mod is a different story. I've been pretty happy with RTR on the whole. THe main problem has been aiding features aimed at increasing realism without taking the AI into account. This last release was especially bad. I think it was because the author decided to rush it out since he was going to have to move.

As to holding Mods to the same standard as CA or a proffesional dev team, this seems highly unrealistic. Decent testing of a game like TW is extremely time consuming. Activision testing ran 3 shifts of testers for weeks and look how many bugs the game shipped with, and this doesn't count the testing the devs did themselves. As to having a beta period, I've found people generally unhelpful when it comes to giving feedback or testing an early version of a mod. Apparently most of the people who have that level of interest are already modding.

Obviously some testing should be done, and sadly the latest release of RTR didn't meet the minimum standard. I've done what I could and created a unofficial patch to fix the obvious problems.

[maxpublic]

Isn't it ironic that there are countless rants against CA stating that they should have tested the game properly before shipping it, but when a mod is confronted with the same complaints it is being protected that no one is forced to download it.

I think that modders should make it very clear that the mod is still in beta phase and that the bugs are still being ironed out. Or when the modders release the mod as completed then they should test it properly before releasing it. I know pretty well how much time goes into a mod, but IMO that argument can be overused. Normal players expect a working mod, not even more bugs, and if numerous patches for obvious problems arrive within the first week then somebody hasn't done his job properly.

You managed to forget that the critical difference between a modder and game developer is PAY. As in, the game developer gets paid and the modder does not.

If you pay me money, you have every right to expect a finished, usable product. Not just that, but the product I advertised, and no other. If you aren't paying me - if I'm providing my labor for free, and you can choose to use or not as you see fit - then you don't have any right whatsoever to expect anything. Your only 'right', in this case, is to choose to use the product of that labor, or to not use the product of that labor. That's where your rights begin and end. If you don't like the product you're free not to use it. Or you could decide not to engage in whining and create a superior product of your own.

Normal players expect a working mod

Normal players also need to exercise some small measure of common sense and realize that UNPAID efforts are always going to be beta. UNPAID modders don't have entire design teams to work with, or hordes of beta testers to torture. UNPAID modders *already have jobs*, and those jobs take the 40+ hours out of the week that PAID developers have to work on the game.

Really, the difference between a PAID developer and an UNPAID modder isn't that hard to grasp. But apparently some players are so egomaniacally self-centered they honestly believe they have the right to tell modders what to do, and how to do it, despite the fact that these little cretins offer NOTHING in return for the modders efforts except grief.

then somebody hasn't done his job properly

Perhaps because it isn't a job. If it were, I and all the other modders out there would be getting checks - from YOU.

Max

[eadingas]

Uhum. Yeah.
You might want to check and notice that Duke John works for several advanced full-scale mods.

[Silver Rusher]

I do quite well agree with maxpublic, and this has been my opinion for a long while now.

A few differences though, as I believe that people who are commited enough to make a mod should really make sure it plays well, as I have downloaded countless mods which simply say "OK, I'll just put a bunch of historically accurate factions and units into the map and then I have my mod." but which don't think about gameplay at all.

Duke John seems very conscious of this entire thing in his mod, and I am DEFINATELY going to put as much into gameplay as I damn possibly can.

[tommh]

I guess I would differentiate between what is desirable vs whats acceptable. There is a , I think a point after which a mod isn't acceptable. If it's extremely buggy or if it formats your hard drive for instance . I just think this line doesn't mean that a reasonable expectation is a polished proffesional fully tested product. Sure, thats desirable, and perhaps in a few instances is even achieved, is it really reasonable as a minimum?

Was RTR acceptable? Well, of course each person's line is in a slightly different place, but for me it was fine until this last release. Unfortunetly Gaius rushed out some changes (apparently because he knew he was going to be offline for 2+ weeks). These things happen.

[lt1956]

TommH, I'm kinda in the middle on this one. But in my 6 Versions (All improvements not bug fixes), I only had 1 BUG that was my fault which was the Triarii phalanx. Which I fixed quickly, But so far every version of my Mod has been bug free. Granted that it isn't as ambitious as RTR, but still I did change allot and did so systematically which each change checking to see the results. It took time, but what I released was a Polished Small Mod. I also included other peoples small mods which were bug free also.

So there is something about releasing buggy work, I think the main thing is if you keep having too many bugs people wont download to even try it.

By the way I really like your Work.

[Turbo]

If there isn't enough time to adequately test RTR for bugs, what is wrong with putting a "Beta" on the release and warning people? As Duke John points out, when you advertise a MOD as a working product, most people expect a working product.

[Turbo]

You managed to forget that the critical difference between a modder and game developer is PAY. As in, the game developer gets paid and the modder does not.

If you pay me money, you have every right to expect a finished, usable product. Not just that, but the product I advertised, and no other. If you aren't paying me - if I'm providing my labor for free, and you can choose to use or not as you see fit - then you don't have any right whatsoever to expect anything. Your only 'right', in this case, is to choose to use the product of that labor, or to not use the product of that labor. That's where your rights begin and end. If you don't like the product you're free not to use it. Or you could decide not to engage in whining and create a superior product of your own.



Normal players also need to exercise some small measure of common sense and realize that UNPAID efforts are always going to be beta. UNPAID modders don't have entire design teams to work with, or hordes of beta testers to torture. UNPAID modders *already have jobs*, and those jobs take the 40+ hours out of the week that PAID developers have to work on the game.

Really, the difference between a PAID developer and an UNPAID modder isn't that hard to grasp. But apparently some players are so egomaniacally self-centered they honestly believe they have the right to tell modders what to do, and how to do it, despite the fact that these little cretins offer NOTHING in return for the modders efforts except grief.



Perhaps because it isn't a job. If it were, I and all the other modders out there would be getting checks - from YOU.

Max

So, according to you, modders have no responsibility when it comes to the users of the MOD. They can release anything they want and the users can just lump it. Nor can the the users complain or comment on the flaws of a MOD otherwise they are "egomanically self-centered" or are "little cretins".

On top of it you lecture one of the top and well respected modders in the community, Duke John. Think before you post.

[Silver Rusher]

I think that you should be able to point stuff out which is wrong with the mod, and suggestions and stuff which you think could be better, BUT if it is an unsponsored unpaid mod then you CAN'T just say "Oh, you're mod is a F***ing Sh!++y little piece of crap, and you might as well use it as an excuse for mucking up your game and reinstalling it rather than actually playing the damn thing!". In fact, you should never insult a mod in any way without using evidence to back it up. Actually, you shouldn't insult a mod at all, but complaining is OK as long as, like I said earlier, you use evidence of what's wrong with it to back it up.

[Duke John]

UNPAID modders don't have entire design teams to work with, or hordes of beta testers to torture.

I shall just keep this related to the RTR mod. I believe that it is currently one of the most succesfull mods. There are alot of posters who contribute to the mod. If the maker of the mod would accept them as a member of a RTR team he would have a pretty large design team.

Recently he decided to release the 4.0 version. If he hadn't tested anything what would be the problem with saying that it is still a beta and it needed testing? There would be enough players to sort out the bugs within week and release the final version without bugs. Instead he apparently released it with the thought "I will fix it later". Players will download it and then after spending alot of hours in the campaign, the game crashes. He's no modder, so perhaps no idea why it happened and he is forced to abaondon his campaign. Is that what a modder should be proud of? Or should he be proud about delivering a finished and polished product that has been created and tested by an entire community?

It seems to me that you have the opinion that the only thing that should motivate programmers to deliver a bugfree product is pay. I can only hope that the CA employees feel a bit of love for their baby and care for the customers who will play it.

[maxpublic]

So, according to you, modders have no responsibility when it comes to the users of the MOD. They can release anything they want and the users can just lump it.

Yep, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. The only "responsibility" a modder has to him or herself.

Nor can the the users complain or comment on the flaws of a MOD otherwise they are "egomanically self-centered" or are "little cretins".

Nope, what I said was that complaining that a mod should somehow be professional in quality when it's made by amateurs who aren't getting paid makes one an "egomaniacly self-centered little cretin". All amateur efforts are going to be beta by definition since the resources of the modder are far, far smaller than the resources of the paid developers who produced the game.

Pointing out flaws and things that don't work can only help the modder improve his work, assuming that's what he wants to do. Pointing out flaws is a good thing; engaging in rants centered around completely unreasonable expectations is not. Dishing out insults to modders - without whom you wouldn't even be here posting, much less enjoying the fruits of their labors - is childishly immature.

Gamers don't get to *expect* anything from modders. What you get is a gift - you don't get to impose your own personal requirements upon that gift. You can either choose to accept it, or choose to reject it. You aren't entitled to a bloody thing, nor do you have any 'rights' when it comes to a mod. That should be self-evident, but apparently there are some gamers out here - a few on this forum - who believe that they've the god-given right to *demand* things from modders. And these people are the "egomaniacly self-centered cretins" I'm referring to. They do nothing to help the modding community in any way, shape or form, and serve only to drive off modders who don't care to listen to their diatribes. Why should I bother releasing what I've done to the community if I'm going to take crap for it? I'd be more inclined to say "to hell with the lot of you" and keep what I've done for myself, and my friends.

If he hadn't tested anything what would be the problem with saying that it is still a beta and it needed testing?

It's beta, by definition. How could it possibly be anything else?

Instead he apparently released it with the thought "I will fix it later".

My mistake then. Apparently Gaius is a professional developer, since that seems to be the exact same tack taken by CA. Apologies all around - I didn't know Gaius worked for CA.

Or should he be proud about delivering a finished and polished product that has been created and tested by an entire community?

Other than art or mods making very small changes to a game, in all the time I've been modding for all the games I've dabbled in, I've only seen a "finished and polished product" once in a blue moon. I've seen a number of modders *claim* that their products are "finished and polished", but generally that speaks more to their ego than the actual state of the mod.

It seems to me that you have the opinion that the only thing that should motivate programmers to deliver a bugfree product is pay.

No, my point was very simple. If you pay for something, you have the right to expect a finished product. If you're getting it for free, you get what you get and you don't have the right to expect anything at all. If you're getting it for free, the modder doesn't *owe* you anything. He or she may choose to continue improving the mod based upon the comments of users, or just decide he/she is done and move on to something else. As a player, you just have to suck it up and realize what you have in your hands is an act of charity, and like all charity you don't get to demand more of the same because you aren't satisfied with what's been given.

Or I suppose you can, if your mama didn't b!tich-slap any manners into you when you were growing up. But the giver can always say "bite me" and walk away if you decide to act petulant, and what are you possibly going to do about it? Complain? That will accomplish nothing other than to make sure that you don't get anything else in the future, either.

I can only hope that the CA employees feel a bit of love for their baby and care for the customers who will play it.

And I can only hope they're proper capitalists who want to make more money on future games, and decide to finish this one up properly so that gamers like myself - who expect a FINISHED product when we give our cash to the person hawking it - will be inclined to buy from them in the future. I could care less for their love so long as their desire to remain in business stays intact.

Max

[Duke John]

I want to create mods that awes people and makes them think "God, that is awesome!" Not that I achieve this, but I do strive for it. While others make mods, make it public and players should take it or leave it.

You are right that players cannot demand anything. But their cries for improvement and better content is nothing different than the cries for improvement and better content before R:TW was released. There were complaints about the demo. Nobody paid for it, so is it inexcuseable since they had no rights?

It's beta, by definition. How could it possibly be anything else?

It's common practice (at least as far as I know) to add the tag Beta to a release if the mod hasn't been thoroughly tested. If we release Sengoku Jidai 1.0 then people can expect then it has been tested for 99%.

I've only seen a "finished and polished product" once in a blue moon. I've seen a number of modders *claim* that their products are "finished and polished", but generally that speaks more to their ego than the actual state of the mod.

That depends on the impatienceness of the modder. Does he want to release the mod as soon as possible (which sometimes does say more about his ego) or does he wait till all the parts are done? Modders are given a working game (with a bugs). Everything they add can only be bugged if they make a fault and forget to test it. In for example the Sengoku Jidai mod everything that I mod is tested ingame. I will notice my selfmade bugs and either fix them now or later. The modeller and texturer and other artists are IMO making excellent things. I can't help it if it sounds arrogant, but if we release the full release of Senogu Jidai mod it will be as finished and polished as possible. And not because we are talented than others, but because we have the intention and motivation to do so.

But I can understand why you think that modders only have responsibility to themselves. With ME:TW there were lots of LotR fans who demanded this and that fearure and constantly harassed us with a release time. We repeatedly responded with: "We don't get paid, we do it in our free time, you cannot demand anything."

Over time I learned that it's a matter of a balance of ignoring the overenthusiastics and appreciating the fact that people are spending their own free time on something that you have created. There may be lunatics, but most of the posters complain because they like what they see, but think that it can be even greater if....

But perhaps it's not a case of responsibility or having the right to. If someone doesn't care for a player having another frustating CTD because the mod wasn't tested thoroughly or a change was made to the techtree without regard to the consequence of gameplay, then perhaps he shouldn't release his mod. If he doesn't care about the players and you are not getting paid, then what drives him to give something to the public? What does he contribute to the community besides constant updates?


And don't get me wrong, I like this discussion about how modders perceive their product and their "customers". So please don't feel threatened in any way.

[Simetrical]

Gaius should have added "Beta" to his 4.0 and 4.1 versions. Did he have a responsibility to do so? No. But behavior should be governed even by things that can't quite be called "responsibilities." Did he have a right to do otherwise? Yes. But there are some rights that preferably shouldn't be exercised. It is very much possible to do something undesirable within your rights and outside of your responsibilities, and that is what occurred here (for whatever reason).

-Simetrical

[Proletariat]

This logic is flawed, almost embarassingly so.

The only "responsibility" a modder has to him or herself.

Any modder who agrees with this quote should keep his or her mod to themselves.

Are you actually saying a product that came as a result of critiques of the original product is then immune to further critique? Just because a modder is producing something for no financial gain does not make it immune to criticism.

If I modify the game on purpose so that a boxing glove attached to an accordion arm punches you in the face everytime the game loads (which is something I'd like to do now, btw), I believe you would complain. This is similar to any complaint about something being modified.

Because of the inherent altruistic nature of all modders we should all just shut up and march lock step with whatever is thrown out there? You set your product up for an even more grueling gambit of critique when your mod has such a lofty aspiration and sanctimonious name as 'Rome: Total Realism.'

If I made a mod called 'Rome: Total Car Smash-up Derby' and then included absolutely no car smashing, but maybe a few Barney the Purple Dinosaur units, would you complain or feel dissatisfied at all? No, I guess you would just shut up, maybe squeak out a thank you, because after all, I did this for free, so I must be impervious to any expectations or criticism, right?



This is just stupid, forgive my rudeness.

[tommh]

Proletariat, I'm afraid your logic is flawed. Saying someone has no responsibility does not make them immune from critique nor does it mean anything about the satisfaction level of the user. It is simly refering to what is the personal responsbility of the modder involved. The original posters argument is that since the modder recieves next to no benefit and to the extent that his mod is enjoyable at all, the reciever does, the modder owes the reciever nothing.

I think this argument is flawed but not because of the reasons you stated. It is because while the modder recieves little or no benefit it is not conversly true that the reciever accrues no cost. Their are two costs you pay for trying a mod. Obvously the first is time. You have used your time to download, install and play the mod. If the mod is unplayble or unsatisfactory this time is lost. The other cost is what is refered to as the exclusionary cost. By playing that mod you are not playing any other mods (which might be much better).

So is the modder responsible to meet this cost even if he accrues little benefit? I would say a qualified yes. There is a reasonable minimum that can be expected. Of course, some will except much less, (perhaps I'm in this camp as I like to tinker my self anyway) and others expect much more (a completely polished product).

I have not currently joined a modding team (no one has asked me ). And am pretty green when it comes to modding, and RTW . I'm not inexperienced in Game dev as a whole but I'm not used to having to be a one man band. This means that some of my early efforts have been plagued with installer errors etc. I try my best, but doing it all by yourself limits effective testing etc. Still I try to be responsible and fix bugs as fast as possible etc. I don't know what more I could do, short of not modding at all.

[Proletariat]

Proletariat, I'm afraid your logic is flawed. Saying someone has no responsibility does not make them immune from critique nor does it mean anything about the satisfaction level of the user. It is simly refering to what is the personal responsbility of the modder involved. The original posters argument is that since the modder recieves next to no benefit and to the extent that his mod is enjoyable at all, the reciever does, the modder owes the reciever nothing.

This implies someone complained, "Arg, you owe us better, Gaius!" or that any of the protests discussed were out of a sense of dissatisfied entitlement. AFAIK, noone argued from such a position and if they did, I apologize.

I don't understand the line;

The original posters argument is that since the modder recieves next to no benefit and to the extent that his mod is enjoyable at all, the reciever does, the modder owes the reciever nothing.

Are you saying that if the downloadee finds the mod enjoyable at all then the modder owes the receiver nothing?

The concept of responsibility and owing someone something is completely irrelevant here.

Anything you can download for free on the internet (and especially on a forum) is by nature self-correcting. If this process is happening to a particular mod (if people don't like it, interest will wane and the product weeds itself out), it's immature of the author to take a position of "Well, I worked on it for free so you all can go screw."

From what I know, this mod wasn't ever presented in the manner lt1956 presented his (ie, 'hey, I made a few changes to this that I find enjoyable so I'm going to throw it out here for anyone that may be like minded.)

[NaeBlis]

Look, if its done for free, it has absolutely every right to be positively criticised. However, when you flame someone for making a crap mod, then that's just wrong. The modder is not getting paid anything. The modder probably designed the mod for either personal satisfaction or as a "gift" to the community. In either scenario, you can't flame a modder, or point out flaws - it is much more courteous (and "proper") to actually point out specifics and state how they can be changed/removed or perhaps even additions.

If they were getting paid for their work, then go ahead, say whatever you want. As the end-user, you have every right to have recieved a decent (and probably above-average) finished piece of work - IF YOU PAID - you had a financial loss from buying a product which wasnt suitable for commercial release. But once again, I reiterate, if you lost nothing from a "crap" mod, then why would you complain and whinge. Infact, the smart thing would be to design a better mod yourself (which is exactly what someone on this thread did, I believe).

[tommh]

Quote:
I don't understand the line;
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommh
The original posters argument is that since the modder recieves next to no benefit and to the extent that his mod is enjoyable at all, the reciever does, the modder owes the reciever nothing.

Are you saying that if the downloadee finds the mod enjoyable at all then the modder owes the receiver nothing?


Uh, no as it clearly says it my post thats what the poster you were responding to was saying. I then go on to disagree with this.

As to the discussion not being about responsibility, I think thats not entirely true. While your point about the "marketplace" wroking itself out is no doubt true in the abstract, I for one don't want to be the one download loads of crappy mods to make it happen. And don't forget as it goes with mods so it goes with whole communities.

[Duke John]

Topic has been split from the RTR rant thread. I think this topic is worth his own thread since it is good to sometimes to think about what you are doing and perhaps improve yourself.

As a modder you should remember that you have a pretty large market. If you plan out well and either have talent or attract talented people then it's not unusual to have your mod installed on thousands of computers. The more eye-cathing mods will get a place in magazines.

I think it's a waste when mods have a professional quality to think lowly about the players. We can expect from companies that they don't think much beyond the sale, they need to make money afterall. But the internet community has the great potential of being the perfect company. People aren't modding for the money, the are doing it because they like doing it. Perhaps it seems that some seem to be also concerned with getting fame and boosting their ego. Then there are people who have the opinion that players should either spit or swallow.

I can only hope that arrogancy is limited to the less talented, since otherwise we would be stuck with great mods but nobody besides the creators knowing how it was done.

And that brings to me my next statement:
Modders should not only have the "responsibility" to properly test and inform the players, but they also need to share their wisdom with the community.

If people are taking profit from one person's wisdom then they should not hesitate to share one own's wisdom.

I am trying my best to motivate myself for writing guides and answering questions. This is not because I am moderator, in contrary I was made a moderator because I was doing that. Luckily there are like-minded people and that should make it easier to find my replacement.

In either scenario, you can't flame a modder, or point out flaws

You should not flame anyone, wether is modder or not. You can certainly point out flaws, but it's up to the creator to decide wether he wants to change anything. However, you cannot demand a change, and that is what most modders find irritating. But if you cannot critisism then you shouldn't publish your mod. It's like an artists who defends his painting against everyone who doesn't like it. Of course it can hurt since it is something that you created and you put alot of time into it, but you should realize that there as many opinions as there are people.

I think that in the case of the Total Realism mod (badly named IMO), it had the advantage of being the first large mod who fixed alot. There will be more and more alternatives. There are some who take their time (Europa Barbarum for example) and I think those mods will win over the quick-fix-mods since the former are created with a well thought vision. When released those mods will be more finished and the player will be far more satisfied then with a mod which is patched every week.

[Myrddraal]

A major part of modding is that the player appreciate the effort of modding (at least for me). If the mod is crap, but nobody criticises or points out flaws, then everyone is denying the modders chance to make his mod enjoyable, and that, I think is a goal all modders have.

If everyone pretends the mod is good, never criticises, never argues, then the modder will never know if he has achived his goals. In my oppinion, thats worse for the modder than being criticised. At least he can change that.

PS That doesn't mean you should grill modders ;-)

[Silver Rusher]

This topic is going deep beyond it's point I think. This reads like a backroom thread.

There don't seem to be any "sides" to this, as everybody has their own opinion, which is interesting IMO. Anyway, my opinion is that at the end of the day modders can do what they want, and if they release it to the public then "whatever". The only thing the public has a right to say is either suggesting ways of improving it (partly by pointing out bugs) or complement it. The modder isn't paid by the public, so who cares if they dislike it? It's his/her mod, he/she can do whatever he/she wants with it. I think it really is as simple as that, to be honest.

[tommh]

Well I don't see it as that simple. What if the mod deleted save games? A recent videogame demo in a major mag for a PS2 game erased any save carts installed, was that OK because it was free? As I said becasue the modder gets little direct reward doesn't mean there isn't any cost for the user.

What about the host? If a mod is broken or malicious do they have any responsibility? If their are more bad mods then good then what happens to the games mod playing community?

It's interesting to look at a very heavily supported and deep community like NWK. The major mod sites all have elaborate rating systems for mods which include breakdowns by feature and even reviews by users as wll as by staff. This sort of infrastructure is nessecary to support the sheer number of modders and users. It will be interesting to see what sort of changes the introduction of the profit element brings to the table.

I think a lot of the posts here are are in reaction to posts that complain about a mod in immature and useless ways. We've all seen these sort of posts, quibbling about every change, complainng about any percieved reduction in power of a favorite unit, lots of use of caps and !'s and the word crap. I don't think anyone objects to useful constructive criticism.

For instance with RTR, it was rushed out and it did have too many bugs but posts saying that it should'nt have been released unless it was completley bug free or that "THE NEW BUILDINGS ARE CRAP!" doesn't help anybody.

[Proletariat]

After claiming my logic was flawed I haven't seen you say anything contrary to my point that has been relevant. Since the differences between our opinions seem to be semantic in nature, I digress.

I think a wonderful example of a successful mod community is with the Neverwinter Nights game at nwnvault.com. The developers and avid modders are all in close contact along with the masses of users that critique and rate the finished mods.

Everything in this thread (and it's parent thread) has been valid to a degree, although some more tact could've been implemented here and there. My only bone to pick was with public's post.

It came across as feckless and intellectually dishonest from a modder's view point.

I don't think Silver was referring to mods that actually cause harm to your property (ie, deleteing save games and whatnot), but merely a subpar product.

I believe there's a responsibilty for a modder to accept criticism (otherwise keep your mod to yourself) and at the same time, of course there's a responsibilty of the moddee to make their criticism tactful and their requests realistic. This seems to be what everyone here agrees on and is the crux of the 'mod ethic' imvho, but I'd like to see public's thoughts.

[Turbo]

It is interesting that modding (in the case of RTR) has such differing opinions.

There are some people that will never be happy with any mod and expect perfection from modders. Comments like "it sucks" aren't constructive and don't contribute anything. I have seen the results of heavy handed criticism that results in fewer modders willing to release mods.

On the other side of the spectrum there seems to be the apologists that ruthlessly attack any criticism of the mod often engaging in the most immature personal attacks and name calling. I believe these people actually hurt a mod by discouraging criticism and promoting an attitude of indifference to the users of the MOD. This unblinking support can pump up egos and may explain why RTR 4.0 was premature released.

There are two extremes here. Nether of them are helpful.

[Myrddraal]

Turbo, that, is called hitting the nail on the head.

I agree completely.

[Turbo]

Yep, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. The only "responsibility" a modder has to him or herself.



Nope, what I said was that complaining that a mod should somehow be professional in quality when it's made by amateurs who aren't getting paid makes one an "egomaniacly self-centered little cretin". All amateur efforts are going to be beta by definition since the resources of the modder are far, far smaller than the resources of the paid developers who produced the game.

Pointing out flaws and things that don't work can only help the modder improve his work, assuming that's what he wants to do. Pointing out flaws is a good thing; engaging in rants centered around completely unreasonable expectations is not. Dishing out insults to modders - without whom you wouldn't even be here posting, much less enjoying the fruits of their labors - is childishly immature.

Gamers don't get to *expect* anything from modders. What you get is a gift - you don't get to impose your own personal requirements upon that gift. You can either choose to accept it, or choose to reject it. You aren't entitled to a bloody thing, nor do you have any 'rights' when it comes to a mod. That should be self-evident, but apparently there are some gamers out here - a few on this forum - who believe that they've the god-given right to *demand* things from modders. And these people are the "egomaniacly self-centered cretins" I'm referring to. They do nothing to help the modding community in any way, shape or form, and serve only to drive off modders who don't care to listen to their diatribes. Why should I bother releasing what I've done to the community if I'm going to take crap for it? I'd be more inclined to say "to hell with the lot of you" and keep what I've done for myself, and my friends.



It's beta, by definition. How could it possibly be anything else?



My mistake then. Apparently Gaius is a professional developer, since that seems to be the exact same tack taken by CA. Apologies all around - I didn't know Gaius worked for CA.



Other than art or mods making very small changes to a game, in all the time I've been modding for all the games I've dabbled in, I've only seen a "finished and polished product" once in a blue moon. I've seen a number of modders *claim* that their products are "finished and polished", but generally that speaks more to their ego than the actual state of the mod.



No, my point was very simple. If you pay for something, you have the right to expect a finished product. If you're getting it for free, you get what you get and you don't have the right to expect anything at all. If you're getting it for free, the modder doesn't *owe* you anything. He or she may choose to continue improving the mod based upon the comments of users, or just decide he/she is done and move on to something else. As a player, you just have to suck it up and realize what you have in your hands is an act of charity, and like all charity you don't get to demand more of the same because you aren't satisfied with what's been given.

Or I suppose you can, if your mama didn't b!tich-slap any manners into you when you were growing up. But the giver can always say "bite me" and walk away if you decide to act petulant, and what are you possibly going to do about it? Complain? That will accomplish nothing other than to make sure that you don't get anything else in the future, either.

And I can only hope they're proper capitalists who want to make more money on future games, and decide to finish this one up properly so that gamers like myself - who expect a FINISHED product when we give our cash to the person hawking it - will be inclined to buy from them in the future. I could care less for their love so long as their desire to remain in business stays intact.

Max

Hmm. I have always supposed that modders did their work for the love of the game and a desire to contribute to the game's community. This goals usually combine into a zealous desire on the part of the modder to produce a superior product not an inferior product.

Not sure what you are going on about regarding the modders getting paid. It is completely irrelevant to the situation on hand.

One suggestion I can offer to you is for you to tone down on your aggressive responses (b!tch-slapping, etc.). They don't contribute anything.

[Jagger]

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

[Vorbis]

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

It's not being unappreciative, but as a modder, you should feel a responsibility to anyone who uses your mod, to make sure that the game is fully functional without major flaws such as crashing. If you don't feel this responsibility, your mod is probably going to be riddled with bugs that you haven't bothered to investigate, test, or try to fix, all of which you should do before releasing it as a "finished" product. I know I do this for my mod, and all changes I (intentionally) make, I test before releasing a new version, now that my mod is no longer in a beta stage, to ensure that whoever uses it will not experience crashes.

Now that doesn't mean it won't be totally bug free, but I can assure you that any new buildings and traits I add won't crash the game, are fully usable, and work as designed. I know because I tested the trait in most ways that can crash the game, and I've played the game specifically to test each modified or new trigger, to see if it works properly. It's not about how big your mod team is (I do everything myself for mine), or getting credit for your mod, or having lots of feedback or whatever, it's about quality, playable mods. And if my mod has a problem with it, if there's something wrong with the game at all, whether it crashes the game or a line of text doesn't display properly, it's not insulting to tell me that the game is messed up (critically, if it's a crashing issue), and it's not being rude or ungrateful because it's MY mistake, I claim my mod works perfectly, and I'm proud of what I've done, so I'm going to go out of my way to fix that problem. And I expect this kind of feedback if someone has an issue with my mod.

If I introduced new bugs in the game without intending to fix them or without extensively checking for errors before each release, I'm not making the game better--I'm making it less stable, less reliable, and more frustrating.

As someone who's made a pretty extensive mod, that's my few cents.