Read the more recent interviews.

 

"We're probably not going to have a standalone editor," he said. "We're going to continue to look into ways to make it easier for people to mod and create content. It does use Unity, so that is potentially a good starting point, but by the same token there's a lot of custom tools that we've written."

It'll be a case of 'what makes sense'. Table-based stuff should be easily editable because it's in a text file, but environments, on the other hand, are "really complicated".

"We're not releasing a standalone editor because we're using Unity, but we're going to look into exposing as much stuff as we can to make user-made content as easy as possible."

 

again, not providing the tools is not the same as not supporting the mods.

 

 

Also no PC game is "mod unfriendly", any game can be modded even games that are designed not to be. It is just a matter of how much work the modder has to put in to do it.

being modable is not the same (far from it) as being mod-friendly. the amount of (guess)work someone has to put into it is precisely the divide between the two.

 

Also no PC game is "mod unfriendly", any game can be modded even games that are designed not to be.  It is just a matter of how much work the modder has to put in to do it.

 

Games that are designed not to be modded, are by definition, "mod unfriendly".

 

 

Also no PC game is "mod unfriendly", any game can be modded even games that are designed not to be.  It is just a matter of how much work the modder has to put in to do it.

 

Games that are designed not to be modded, are by definition, "mod unfriendly".

 

But they can still be modded.  Unlike a console game for example Skyrim where the PC version is mod friendly as heck but the Xbox version can't be touched period.

A mod unfriendly game would be one that uses a lot of baked in scripting, another example would be using file formats that are unusual and proprietary without releasing documentation. It's silly to deny that some games are a lot more mod friendly than others, and that's what Josh meant.

Edited February 15, 201411 yr by AwesomeOcelot

You can publish with unity free as long as annual revinues are under 100 k

You can publish with unity free as long as annual revinues are under 100 k

You're still using someone else's product.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that Obsidian made specifically to help building things in Pillars of Eternity should be released to the public. That includes their dialogue tool.

Further more they should release a list of filetypes used, and at least make public what proprietary tools are used to build the game, so that anyone dedicated enough at least knows where to get them, or how to find something similar.

 

Edit: anything should be editable. There should be no deliberate hiding of information behind arcane filetypes or encryption.

Edited February 16, 201411 yr by JFSOCC

 

wrong and wrong.

 

- not providing the tools is not the same as not supporting the mods.

so far all that i've seen, that has been said by obsidian folks about modding, has been along the lines "we will try to support modding" and "it will not be mod un-friendly".

 

- unity is free,

as long as You don't try to make a profit of it.

Uh no, they aren't supporting modding at all.  The game is being made with Unity, which means you can use Unity to mod it.  Just like any other game made with Unity.  But per their own interviews they are not doing anything to assist actual modders or making any kind of tool to make modding easier.  Read the more recent interviews.

 

Also no PC game is "mod unfriendly", any game can be modded even games that are designed not to be.  It is just a matter of how much work the modder has to put in to do it.

 

I don't think you can use Unity to decompile code.  Yes, it's put together in Unity, but it ships as an exe with resources.

 

As far as I'm concerned, anything that Obsidian made specifically to help building things in Pillars of Eternity should be released to the public. That includes their dialogue tool.

Further more they should release a list of filetypes used, and at least make public what proprietary tools are used to build the game, so that anyone dedicated enough at least knows where to get them, or how to find something similar.

 

Edit: anything should be editable. There should be no deliberate hiding of information behind arcane filetypes or encryption.

 

That's asking for far too much.  Their internal tools give them a substantial advantage over other companies (there's a reason Obsidian kicks the crap out of other companies when it comes to reactivity, and it's not just the talent of their writing staff), and would be marketable products in their own right.  Public funding shouldn't mean you have to give away your kitchen sink.

 

And they've already said they are trying to make the file types as open as possible, so that's the best they can do.  They never promised to make a spiritual successor to NWN.

 

As far as I'm concerned, anything that Obsidian made specifically to help building things in Pillars of Eternity should be released to the public. That includes their dialogue tool.

Further more they should release a list of filetypes used, and at least make public what proprietary tools are used to build the game, so that anyone dedicated enough at least knows where to get them, or how to find something similar.

 

Edit: anything should be editable. There should be no deliberate hiding of information behind arcane filetypes or encryption.

 

That's asking for far too much.  Their internal tools give them a substantial advantage over other companies (there's a reason Obsidian kicks the crap out of other companies when it comes to reactivity, and it's not just the talent of their writing staff), and would be marketable products in their own right.  Public funding shouldn't mean you have to give away your kitchen sink.

 

And they've already said they are trying to make the file types as open as possible, so that's the best they can do.  They never promised to make a spiritual successor to NWN.

 

that's old fashioned thinking. Advantage over the competition comes from writing quality dialogue, and making right decisions for balanced gameplay. It's like saying the competition can;t have pencils because that means they can;t write. it's ridiculous, the pencil doesn;t determine the quality of the writing, after all. It just makes it a lot easier to pen.

 

Obsidian won;t give away it;s position in the market by sharing these tools, only strengthen it.

that's old fashioned thinking. Advantage over the competition comes from writing quality dialogue, and making right decisions for balanced gameplay. It's like saying the competition can;t have pencils because that means they can;t write. it's ridiculous, the pencil doesn;t determine the quality of the writing, after all. It just makes it a lot easier to pen.

 

Obsidian won;t give away it;s position in the market by sharing these tools, only strengthen it.

Obsidian has already done deals with those tools; I don't think they should be expected or feel obligated to share something they devised and created.

 

Now if they want to release a sample dialog file, with brief overview, and the option for users to replace the placeholder dialog, I think that would be incredibly awesome on their part... But their toolkit is for organizing an entire world of NPCs; no modder is likely to ever need that, and any modder that does, probably knows enough not to need it either.

Edited February 17, 201411 yr by Gizmo

You don't know that. Someone might want to make a comprehensive content mod. or a full campaign. And sure, maybe they could without the tools, but those tools will cut down the time required enormously. If they created any tool specifically for use on Pillars of Eternity, I feel they should release it along with the game.

You don't know that. Someone might want to make a comprehensive content mod. or a full campaign. And sure, maybe they could without the tools, but those tools will cut down the time required enormously.

This matters? They should have no leverage on this issue; Obsidian is not selling the tools as part of the deal, and it cost them to create those tools. It was not a stretch goal, or I would of course agree; but here I don't see it. If somebody wants to mod the game, that's great; if Obsidian wants to help ~then whatever help they offer is also great, but they should not be obligated or thought ill of for not supplying their in-house tools... Any modder that is that serious, should call them and arrange a contract to use their in-house tools... and of course they might still decline.

 

(And also because they will otherwise own that mod if they did supply the tools for free; it would be in the EULA.)

 

I'd love to see an official toolset (even a stripped down one that crudely makes a few tasks slightly easier); but I won't me miffed if it doesn't happen; it was not ever part of the plan as far as I can tell.

Edited February 17, 201411 yr by Gizmo

This matters? They should have no leverage on this issue; Obsidian is not selling the tools as part of the deal, and it cost them to create those tools. It was not a stretch goal, or I would of course agree; but here I don't see it. If somebody wants to mod the game, that's great; if Obsidian wants to help ~then whatever help they offer is also great, but they should not be obligated or thought ill of for not supplying their in-house tools... Any modder that is that serious, should call them and arrange a contract to use their in-house tools... and of course they might still decline.

(And also because they will otherwise own that mod if they did supply the tools for free; it would be in the EULA.)

 

I'd love to see an official toolset (even a stripped down one that crudely makes a few tasks slightly easier); but I won't me miffed if it doesn't happen; it was not ever part of the plan as far as I can tell.

It is interesting you say that considering they made these mod tools you apparently feel no right to request using your money.

 

Mod tools only help a game, even if the game isn't popular.  Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games are wildly successful, they build their own engine, the budget and dev time are also astronomical compared to Eternity.  Yet with every new release not only do they release "mod tools" they actually give you the entire program they used to write the whole game.  This wasn't because some fan pushback or demands, they are just smart and realized a healthy mod community can only do good things for a game.

 

Bear in mind it isn't like we are even asking them to do anything.  JFSOCC is basically saying "hey if they did make a custom tool to build the game give it to us".  We aren't asking them to go out of their way and build some new tool, or hand us some special mod kit with full on new resources not in game.  We are asking them to make any tools they made for themselves already available to modders and be transparent about file types.  Considering, once again, the backers funded their game.... I don't really feel like that is asking for much.

 

Now if all they are using is straight Unity and did nothing to make custom tools to help them I can't really think of a good reason to not just be up front and say that.  However, I don't notice them saying that.... do you?

It is interesting you say that considering they made these mod tools you apparently feel no right to request using your money.

 

Considering, once again, the backers funded their game.... I don't really feel like that is asking for much.

 

Considering I'm a backer, I wouldn't want Obsidian to spend time on making mod tools, spending time on QA, spending time on adding instructions of the mod tools to the manual and anything else that involves in time and money, if it's going to take time away from the games release. Mainly because I don't use mod tools, I don't create mods and very rarely use mods. So it really doesn't affect this backer. So it's not a question of rights for me. And as Gizmo said, It wasn't part of a stretch goal. If Obsidian decides to release mod tools down the track, I'm also fine with that.

It is interesting you say that considering they made these mod tools you apparently feel no right to request using your money.

No I don't; I backed them for the game, not whatever tools they made to create it.

 

Had it been a backer's tier award, then I'd likely have backed at that level, but if I didn't, (or couldn't), then tough.

~but they wouldn't have done that anyway, because the tools would have been passed around anyway; but it's for example sake.

 

Mod tools only help a game, even if the game isn't popular.

So? (Seriously, how does that matter to anyone but them, and they can choose not to if they wish; they did not promise us mod tools.)

 

Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games are wildly successful, they build their own engine, the budget and dev time are also astronomical compared to Eternity.  Yet with every new release not only do they release "mod tools" they actually give you the entire program they used to write the whole game.

No they most certainly do not.   (And they cannot.)

 

What they do is recompile the toolset after stripping out middle-ware they are not licensed to give away.  And also it's not strictly beneficent either. To use the tools, one must agree to the terms; and the terms state that they effectively own what you make with the tools.  This is self protective, and gives them the freedom expand on concepts they see in the mods ~on the remotest chance that they had not already thought of it themselves.  This means that no one can make bogus (or true) claims that Bethesda stole their idea; and they are in the right... They offer the tools for free and those are the terms.

 

**Technically ~even back in the Black Ilse days... Modding is legally iffy behavior without permission... Black Ilse's official policy was "No!" (but unofficially, they would ignore it).  But they reserved the right not to ignore it if it became a problem for them.

 

The tool set is basically a contract that gives restricted permission without giving away the baby.

Edited February 18, 201411 yr by Gizmo

 

It is interesting you say that considering they made these mod tools you apparently feel no right to request using your money.

 

Considering, once again, the backers funded their game.... I don't really feel like that is asking for much.

 

Considering I'm a backer, I wouldn't want Obsidian to spend time on making mod tools, spending time on QA, spending time on adding instructions of the mod tools to the manual and anything else that involves in time and money, if it's going to take time away from the games release. Mainly because I don't use mod tools, I don't create mods and very rarely use mods. So it really doesn't affect this backer. So it's not a question of rights for me. And as Gizmo said, It wasn't part of a stretch goal. If Obsidian decides to release mod tools down the track, I'm also fine with that.

 

How very selfish that line of thinking is. I don't care for romances, but I certainly empathise with those who were looking forward to it. I despise paladins, I would never play them, but if they were cut I wouldn't stay silent because it didn't affect me.

So you don't use mod tools? Plenty of us who would.

 

How very selfish that line of thinking is. I don't care for romances, but I certainly empathise with those who were looking forward to it. I despise paladins, I would never play them, but if they were cut I wouldn't stay silent because it didn't affect me.

So you don't use mod tools? Plenty of us who would.

 

 

The same can be said for those who want something that wasn't promised or part of the stretch goals and want the game delayed further when others don't want it. How very selfish that line of thinking to delay a game for something that wasn't promised nor part of the stretch goals and to inconvenience other backers who don't want it, just because some people want mod tools. And paladins were part of a stretch goal. They promised they would be in the game. Obsidian can't cut paladins. It seems odd that you would compare something Obsidian promised us, something that was part of a stretch goal to something that wasn't. Obsidian didn't promise mod tools. And did you miss the part where if Obsidian did release mod tools further down the track, I would be okay with that? Seems you did. They promised us a game, not a game with mod tools. So you use mod tools? Plenty of us wouldn't. And we shouldn't be inconvenienced with a game delayed any further because of it.

Edited February 18, 201411 yr by Hiro Protagonist II

I plan to try modding it if it seems possible and they don't actively prohibit it. But they did not promise a toolset for modding; so I won't be expecting one.

 

How very selfish that line of thinking is. I don't care for romances, but I certainly empathise with those who were looking forward to it. I despise paladins, I would never play them, but if they were cut I wouldn't stay silent because it didn't affect me.

So you don't use mod tools? Plenty of us who would.

 

The same can be said for those who want something that wasn't promised or part of the stretch goals and want the game delayed further when others don't want it. How very selfish that line of thinking to delay a game for something that wasn't promised nor part of the stretch goals and to inconvenience other backers who don't want it, just because some people want mod tools. And paladins were part of a stretch goal. They promised they would be in the game. Obsidian can't cut paladins. It seems odd that you would compare something Obsidian promised us, something that was part of a stretch goal to something that wasn't. Obsidian didn't promise mod tools. And did you miss the part where if Obsidian did release mod tools further down the track, I would be okay with that? Seems you did. They promised us a game, not a game with mod tools. So you use mod tools? Plenty of us wouldn't. And we shouldn't be inconvenienced with a game delayed any further because of it.

 

crafting was a stretch goal too, didn't that get neutered?

 

crafting was a stretch goal too, didn't that get neutered?

 

 

neutered: the removal of an animal's reproductive organ, either all of it or a considerably large part.

 

So when did crafting (or a considerably large part of it) get pulled from the game?

I don't think crafting got neutered. However, crafting was introduced together with the durability mechanic, which was eviscerated in short order, so that overshadowed crafting, however:

 

 

 

A few points of clarification:

 

* "Crafting" is one skill, but the crafting system uses multiple skills.  I.e., the crafting system does not rely on the existence of the Crafting skill.

* Other than reaching the edge of a map to access the world map, there is no fast-travel in PE.  That said, we will likely avoid the IWD-style 5-level dungeons without semi-regular shortcuts back to the surface (N.B.: this does not mean Skyrim-style loops).

* Most items do take up space in personal inventories!  The party Stash is unlimited, but the Pack (made of personal inventories) is not.  Crafting items (and quest items) always go into (and come out of) the Stash.  We are doing this specifically to address common complaints about crafting items cluttering the inventory.  Since crafting is typically done at camps or other non-combat locations, allowing the items to come out of the Stash doesn't seem to create any problems.

 

As I posted on SA, Crafting (the skill) and its associated subsystems (like durability) were the elements I felt least confident about in our skill system.  I strongly believe that choices within an array should give the player reasonably balanced benefits.  Because certain fundamental skills (like Stealth) can clearly benefit from multiple party members taking them and can contribute to party effectiveness in combat, I believe that other skills should do the same in their own way -- enough to make all of them appealing choices on multiple party members.  This also has the benefit of making the uses of skills much higher-frequency than the individual uses that depend on designer content (e.g. unlocking doors or gaining a dialogue/quest option).

 

As an example, Medicine in its various Fallout forms contributes to the efficacy of stimpaks.  There are many other places were Medicine can be used in quests and dialogue, but it has high-frequency use with stimpaks (in or between combats).  It's a benefit that can apply to any character who has the skill, even if a character with a higher rating in a party may be "the guy" to perform the high-difficulty actions.

 

With all of the skills other than Crafting (specifically), those high-frequency benefits/uses were easy to come by.  Crafting presented some difficulties and, as I wrote previously, I was concerned about the lack of systemic drains in the economy.  Many people have mentioned a lot of potential uses for wealth.  Most of them are great ideas and ones that we plan to use, but the vast majority of them are not systemic, rather content-dependent or scripted instances (e.g. bribes).  However, it is clear from discussions here and elsewhere that the long-term balance of the economy is not a concern for most players who voiced their opinions -- and almost certainly not in the endgame.

 

Based on discussions on the forums and conversations I had with people on the team, we will be doing the following:

 

* Removing durability as a mechanic on items.

* Removing the Crafting skill (specifically).  The crafting system and its associated mechanics will remain, as-is.

 

Ultimately, solving skill imbalance and endgame wealth abundance problems is not worth what players perceive as uninteresting and unenjoyable gameplay.  I can still solve the skill imbalance problems by removing the problem skill.  As for endgame wealth abundance, we will continue to create places for you to use wealth in the economy: unique items, the stronghold, optional quest/dialogue gates, etc.  Ultimately, if those options go unused, I'll have to trust that the majority of players won't be significantly troubled by an excess of wealth in the late game.

 

Thanks for all of your feedback.

 

 

Emphasis mine.

Edited February 18, 201411 yr by Night Stalker

It was a rhetorical question. I had that thread opened in another tab. I'm thinking JFSOCC meant nerfed instead of neutered but I don't consider it a nerf either. But anyway, the issue of crafting has been done and dusted and even Josh commented that he wasn't confident with it:
 

As I posted on SA, Crafting (the skill) and its associated subsystems (like durability) were the elements I felt least confident about in our skill system.

**Technically ~even back in the Black Ilse days... Modding is legally iffy behavior without permission... 

 

Well damn, now I want modding tools so I can add in a a female companion called Black Ilse.

German accent, black leather, whips. A morally corrupt but fun character.

Considering I'm a backer, I wouldn't want Obsidian to spend time on making mod tools, spending time on QA, spending time on adding instructions of the mod tools to the manual and anything else that involves in time and money, if it's going to take time away from the games release. Mainly because I don't use mod tools, I don't create mods and very rarely use mods. So it really doesn't affect this backer. So it's not a question of rights for me. And as Gizmo said, It wasn't part of a stretch goal. If Obsidian decides to release mod tools down the track, I'm also fine with that.

.....  I clearly said in my post "give us mod tools they made for themselves to help make the game".  I also clearly said I wasn't asking for them to make tools they didn't already make for their own benefit or create resources for modders specifically.  What I am asking for costs them not 1 cent, and the only time they need to invest is uploading the tool then making a link to it on a webpage.

 

Meanwhile Obsidian's lack of a promise doesn't mean crap.  If you want to win people over you have to do more than say "well I didn't promise that so...".  Either they made some tools for their own use or they didn't.  If they did put them out there for modders.  If they didn't well gee golly willakers all they have to do is say that and it is a non issue isn't it?

 

Meanwhile I sure hope you expect this game to be more than just what was "promised".  For example they didn't "promise" it would be bug free or even playable.  Only that it would be a game containing XYZ elements.

Edited February 19, 201411 yr by Karkarov

If the tools were integrated into a professional license of another piece of software (be it UNITY, Maya or what-not) that wont be possible though. They might have the license, the modders probably wont.

And I somehow doubt modders would really want "here's the tool, now buy AudioCAD for 2500 euro".