Petition for comprehensive modding tools

[Hiro Protagonist II]

.....  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.

 

 

If I pay a tradesperson, a plumber or electrician to do a job and with the money they receive from me decides to buy some tools, do I get to keep the tools too? Even though all I asked for was something that excluded those tools?

[Karkarov]

 

.....  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.

 

 

If I pay a tradesperson, a plumber or electrician to do a job and with the money they receive from me decides to buy some tools, do I get to keep the tools too? Even though all I asked for was something that excluded those tools?

 

No moron because they bought their tools with their own money not mine.  Grow up you half baked troll.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

No moron because they bought their tools with their own money not mine.  Grow up you half baked troll.

 

No, please read what I posted. If you give money to a tradesperson (say a deposit) which is quite normal for some tradespeople depending on the job (painters come to mind) and they go and buy some tools and supplies with that money you gave them and they did a job for you, (remember, they are using your money, not theirs) then are you entitled to those tools? Or are you only entitled to the work that tradesperson did? It's the same thing.

 

A bit of life experience would help as this does happen in the building industry. It's also standard in other industries as well.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Alfiriel]

 

 

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

You're still using someone else's product.

Which is a problem why if I can use it for free and dont plan to make profit?

 

I agree on WEI btw amazing tool that makes those games especially BG2 what it is ... I run around 60 mods and for a game out of this time and if I think how hard some interfer in the world and with each other the amount of crashes I have is amazingly low.

[Frenetic Pony]

Obsidian could easily just GPL the custom tools they made after the game is released. I mean I understand the case for not doing it during development proper, spend the budget where its needed.

 

But post release support, assuming the game does well enough, isn't going to be that hard to clean up and release those tools, even going so far as to open source them. Just because they made these tools themselves doesn't really give them any value to anyone else, in fact it's kind of useless except to Obsidian and sister project Torment 2 if they just sit there unreleased.

 

The only real extra worth in these tools is giving them to the community. It's not like there's any downside whatsoever to people having access to this stuff. And the upside that Skyrim, for example, probably sold a million copies more than it would have from supporting mod tools, if not more.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Frenetic Pony

[Gizmo]

.....  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.

Obsidian could easily just GPL the custom tools they made after the game is released. I mean I understand the case for not doing it during development proper, spend the budget where its needed.

 

What possible incentive for that is there?  These are custom tools that you can make a game like Pillars of Eternity; that can be licensed to another studio. It makes no sense to give it away for free.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Gizmo

[Amentep]

Have to say I played and enjoyed PST, IWD, IWD2, BG, BG2 without having any additional content added.

 

Truth is other than content that improves the visuals of a game (like some of the overhaul mods I used in Morrowind) or fixpacks that fix things that never got fixed in official patches (like Platter's Fixpack for PST which - as above - wasn't essential in enjoying the game) I've never really been drawn to fan created content.

[Tauron]

To specify "Other" option : I hope they add tools for those who wish to add to the game or create their own content. If anyone remembers tutu mod, than you know what magic is and those fans who made it deserve luv.

 

Shadowrun did really good and community is free to make their own content within the limitations of the game (until devs expand on it). Rest is up to talented people, fans who have stories to tell. So the biggest drawback is crappy dialog options or storytelling.

 

Now I dont know how modding will work in PoE. Designing housing and such might not work as in shadowrun, whn most if not all areas are "handcrafted". I know that I would love wiz tower like Orthanac. I like those cliches hehe.

 

It would be cool if players could modify or create quests and items and stuff.

[JFSOCC]

 

.....  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.

 

If I pay a tradesperson, a plumber or electrician to do a job and with the money they receive from me decides to buy some tools, do I get to keep the tools too? Even though all I asked for was something that excluded those tools?

 

If you asked them "Hey I like DIY-ing a little, could you tell me what kind of hammer you use" or, could you tell me where to buy your hammer? do you expect a "NO! THIS IS MY HAMMER!"?

[Lephys]

If you asked them "Hey I like DIY-ing a little, could you tell me what kind of hammer you use" or, could you tell me where to buy your hammer? do you expect a "NO! THIS IS MY HAMMER!"?

This.

 

When a game developer "gives you" their tools, they still have them. A tradesman cannot do this, as his tools are not digital.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

If you asked them "Hey I like DIY-ing a little, could you tell me what kind of hammer you use" or, could you tell me where to buy your hammer? do you expect a "NO! THIS IS MY HAMMER!"?

 

A tradesperson wouldn't say that because you haven't asked him for his hammer. However the tradesperson can point you in the right direction without giving them their tools. Obsidian can point you to the Unity website.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

If you asked them "Hey I like DIY-ing a little, could you tell me what kind of hammer you use" or, could you tell me where to buy your hammer? do you expect a "NO! THIS IS MY HAMMER!"?

This.

 

When a game developer "gives you" their tools, they still have them. A tradesman cannot do this, as his tools are not digital.

 

 

False logic and the same principle applies. You can't ask for something to be given to you, that wasn't promised to you, that wasn't part of the job, and the original agreement excluded those tools and it's what you agreed to originally. Even if the tradesperson created special tools for that specific job with the money you gave to them, they're under no obligation to give them away. They may create copies of those tools, they may lease those copies to another tradesperson, they're not obliged to give a copy of those tools to you because you now want them. 

Edited February 20, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Bryy]

Bethesda has never given us the entire engine required to make the game.

 

No company ever has done this. Not even Valve.

 

That would be incredibly stupid on their part if they did. Giving out a possibly million dollar piece of software for free? 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Bethesda has never given us the entire engine required to make the game.

 

No company ever has done this. Not even Valve.

 

That would be incredibly stupid on their part if they did. Giving out a possibly million dollar piece of software for free? 

 

but, but, but... It's for the good and longevity of the game! Obsidian be damned.

[JFSOCC]

 

 

If you asked them "Hey I like DIY-ing a little, could you tell me what kind of hammer you use" or, could you tell me where to buy your hammer? do you expect a "NO! THIS IS MY HAMMER!"?

This.

 

When a game developer "gives you" their tools, they still have them. A tradesman cannot do this, as his tools are not digital.

 

 

False logic and the same principle applies. You can't ask for something to be given to you, that wasn't promised to you, that wasn't part of the job, and the original agreement excluded those tools and it's what you agreed to originally. Even if the tradesperson created special tools for that specific job with the money you gave to them, they're under no obligation to give them away. They may create copies of those tools, they may lease those copies to another tradesperson, they're not obliged to give a copy of those tools to you because you now want them.

 

You are right, Obsidian isn't obliged to give us anything but the game we backed.

That said, I still believe it mighty stupid if they don't release modding tools. Obliged or not, it's the right thing to do. It's more than fanservice, it's community building. It's providing opportunities for others to learn and grow as artists. A potential source of future employees or indeed competitors. By sharing their tools, they help build a legacy of encouraging new artists. It costs them nothing extra to release what they've already made. It increases the potential of their work far beyond what they will deliver in these two years of working on it.

It won't cost them one sale, and potentially delivers them a bigger market further down the line.

 

It's all pros and no cons.

it's a no-brainer.

 

To me at least, I find it very hard to understand anyone could be opposed.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I agree. I'm not opposed to mod tools being released. I think it would be a great idea. If Obsidian decides to not release tools, then I respect and understand their decision. If further down the track they do release mod tools, then even better. What I don't agree with is requiring Obsidian to release mod tools with some of the arguments in this thread.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

EDIT: Blarg... JFSOCC pretty much covered it.

 

Curse my work-related delays in post-typing. 8P

Edited February 20, 2014 by Lephys

[alanschu]

I'd love to get some dev feedback on this. Is it true? Are licenses the limiting factor here?

I can't speak specifically as to why Obsidian has no plans to create an end user toolset (my personal opinion is simply that the time investment would probably be better spent on the game, and that user friendly end user tools are not trivial things to do).

 

Unity does have some licensing quirks, however, which I know burned a professor of mine that experimented with it for some game development classes.

 

http://unity3d.com/company/legal/eula

 

"Legal Entities May Not Use Unity Free with Pro Add-ons for the Same Platform"

 

 

They ran into issue such that students were not allowed to use Unity Free at home, and the Unity Pro provided at school, and as such students had to choose to work on place or another. As such, it's possible that this may compromise things for Obsidian as the tools and game are likely developed to work with Unity Pro, and providing support for Unity Free may run into annoying legalese.

 

 

 

Maybe here. But really it's impact is still fairly niche. No I have to disagree with you. I don't want to slam the IE games, but to say they've had the same impact as the fallout series is delusional.

There's some chicken and egg problems here, however.

 

Both the latest fallout games were immensely more successful than any of the IE games. As such you simply have a larger pool of potential modders to make content (as well as a larger market to consume the mods). I'd be more inclined to believe that FO3 and FONV would have been very successful games without modding tools, as opposed to modding tools being significant contributors to the games being successful.

 

 

 

It costs them nothing extra to release what they've already made.

Unfortunately, while it may seem this way, this is rarely the case. Especially if there is anything third party associated (or stuff that they feel is proprietary and a competitive advantage, like perhaps their conversation editor). Especially if you're hoping for things such as the following:

 

It's providing opportunities for others to learn and grow as artists. A potential source of future employees or indeed competitors. By sharing their tools, they help build a legacy of encouraging new artists.

 

 

Depending on the discipline, there are a lot of fields that don't have a shortage of applicants. I could also argue that someone that can create mods without end user mod toolsets could possibly come out as an even stronger applicant. Your point gives the impression that without doing this, Obsidian will be compromising the growth of game developers in any significant way. Even though earlier in the thread you concede that without a good game an end user toolset is irrelevant.

Edited February 20, 2014 by alanschu

[Gizmo]

...because they bought their tools with their own money not mine...

Irrelevant. If you give anyone money to do a job ~it's their money so long as they deliver the work. If they buy a computer for the job that computer does not belong to you nor are you entitled free access to it.  If the job was paint a digital picture and they coded an image editor to do it  ~that software is theirs not yours. Obsidian did not offer up their tools as part of the deal; they are not obligated to offer them to anyone... You should know this, it's common sense.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

^ Yep. The ownership of money seems to be lost with some people when a transaction is made. I tried to keep it a little simple.

[Night Stalker]

 

It costs them nothing extra to release what they've already made.

Unfortunately, while it may seem this way, this is rarely the case. Especially if there is anything third party associated (or stuff that they feel is proprietary and a competitive advantage, like perhaps their conversation editor).

 

Remember when Obsidian released the NWN2 toolset and people complained and accused Obsidian of not releasing the version they had built the campaign with, and they had to explain that the version they had to use was in fact worse than the end product.

 

Making a powerful editor with good usability and workflow is hard enough for professional use, and making a polished one for general consumption, with good documentation and without any of the papercuts and weird workarounds is a Herculean task.

 

And that is not even dealing with licenses.

[JFSOCC]

 

I'd love to get some dev feedback on this. Is it true? Are licenses the limiting factor here?

I can't speak specifically as to why Obsidian has no plans to create an end user toolset (my personal opinion is simply that the time investment would probably be better spent on the game, and that user friendly end user tools are not trivial things to do).

 

Unity does have some licensing quirks, however, which I know burned a professor of mine that experimented with it for some game development classes.

 

http://unity3d.com/company/legal/eula

 

"Legal Entities May Not Use Unity Free with Pro Add-ons for the Same Platform"

 

 

They ran into issue such that students were not allowed to use Unity Free at home, and the Unity Pro provided at school, and as such students had to choose to work on place or another. As such, it's possible that this may compromise things for Obsidian as the tools and game are likely developed to work with Unity Pro, and providing support for Unity Free may run into annoying legalese.

 

 

 

Thanks for this explanation. I didn't realise it was this convoluted. Do you think this holds up despite that any mod made would have to be released for free?

 

Maybe here. But really it's impact is still fairly niche. No I have to disagree with you. I don't want to slam the IE games, but to say they've had the same impact as the fallout series is delusional.

There's some chicken and egg problems here, however.

 

Both the latest fallout games were immensely more successful than any of the IE games. As such you simply have a larger pool of potential modders to make content (as well as a larger market to consume the mods). I'd be more inclined to believe that FO3 and FONV would have been very successful games without modding tools, as opposed to modding tools being significant contributors to the games being successful.

 

That's a fair argument, but it can't be denied that there is a significant amount of mods for FO3 and FO:NV in a fairly short period of time. I believe that is mostly due to the contribution of good modding tools

 

 

It costs them nothing extra to release what they've already made.

Unfortunately, while it may seem this way, this is rarely the case. Especially if there is anything third party associated (or stuff that they feel is proprietary and a competitive advantage, like perhaps their conversation editor). Especially if you're hoping for things such as the following:

 

It's providing opportunities for others to learn and grow as artists. A potential source of future employees or indeed competitors. By sharing their tools, they help build a legacy of encouraging new artists.

 

Depending on the discipline, there are a lot of fields that don't have a shortage of applicants. I could also argue that someone that can create mods without end user mod toolsets could possibly come out as an even stronger applicant. Your point gives the impression that without doing this, Obsidian will be compromising the growth of game developers in any significant way. Even though earlier in the thread you concede that without a good game an end user toolset is irrelevant.

 

Yes, I am saying it would compromise the growth of artists. Sure, those who could do the same without released modding tools might be strong and more capable. But there is a significant advantage to getting novices their first leg-up. It's about getting new people curious and interested, and then giving them the tools to grow from. Games as a medium are in their early adolescence and this medium is going to be much larger and significant still. It doesn't matter that there is no shortage of applicants now (to my mind there is a shortage of game studios)

 

Nor does my concession that without a good game the end user toolset being irrelevant have any bearing on this argument. I have an expectation that releasing the tools used to develop PoE won't result in a lower quality game.

Actually, I'm curious to see if the disappointment that Shadowrun Returns seems to be for many might be compensated in some way in the (near) future due to their policy of releasing good modding tools. Time will tell.

[alanschu]

Thanks for this explanation. I didn't realise it was this convoluted. Do you think this holds up despite that any mod made would have to be released for free?

Given that it affected students and a University for the projects they would be working on, it doesn't seem like the free aspect is relevant at all (the students weren't selling their course projects). Though it *is* likely not the exact same thing because an end user toolset needn't necessarily be the exact same environment than the developer toolset. Though in this case, this means that the toolset developed would require more work developed for it.

 

 

That's a fair argument, but it can't be denied that there is a significant amount of mods for FO3 and FO:NV in a fairly short period of time. I believe that is mostly due to the contribution of good modding tools

Good modding tools definitely help with project velocity. That was never disputed. I still contend that the primary reason that lots of mods came out was simply because lots of people picked up the game.

 

 

 

Yes, I am saying it would compromise the growth of artists. Sure, those who could do the same without released modding tools might be strong and more capable. But there is a significant advantage to getting novices their first leg-up. It's about getting new people curious and interested, and then giving them the tools to grow from. Games as a medium are in their early adolescence and this medium is going to be much larger and significant still. It doesn't matter that there is no shortage of applicants now (to my mind there is a shortage of game studios)

I'm immensely skeptical that releasing an end user toolset for Pillars of Eternity would have any meaningful impact on the quantity or quality of future work force developers and be difficult to convince me that this is an appropriate reason to release an end user toolset, because nothing is free. It could potentially compromise the main game.

 

 

Nor does my concession that without a good game the end user toolset being irrelevant have any bearing on this argument. I have an expectation that releasing the tools used to develop PoE won't result in a lower quality game.

Your concession has complete bearing on the argument. The real question is, what are you willing to give up in the base game to ensure that an end user toolset gets released? The only way an end user toolset gets released is if you take time that would otherwise be spent on the game to do so.

Edited February 20, 2014 by alanschu

[AwesomeOcelot]

No company ever has done this. Not even Valve.

Apart from, you know, iD Tech 2 (Quake & 2),3 (Quake 3), & 4 (Doom 3), plus Wolfenstein 3D and Doom's engines, oh and Hexen and Herectic, also HPL 1 (Penumbra), and Torque3D (Tribes 2).

[alanschu]

To be fair, John released those after the engines were less relevant in the industry (usually once he had made something on a different engine) and id Tech 4 required John to make some changes before release. Having said that, I love that Carmack did all this.

 

But you are correct that a claim that no company has ever done this is incorrect. I'm skeptical that the people here, though, are talking about getting the engine 5+ years after release.