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]

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