Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Harrisburg, PA 09/18
Greenbelt, MD 11/06

Regularly scheduled events

User information for jacobvandy

Real Name jacobvandy   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname jacobvandy
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage None given.
Signed On Mar 1, 2011, 00:49
Total Comments 2949 (Senior)
User ID 56195
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ] Older >


News Comments > Saturday Tech Bits
3. Re: Saturday Tech Bits Apr 25, 2015, 17:37 jacobvandy
 
Hey man, I buy carbon credits!  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
8. Re: etc. Apr 25, 2015, 17:17 jacobvandy
 
That guy is such a drama queen. He didn't read the fine print when he submitted his mod for sale, and when Valve decides they're not going to screw over the few people who did buy it by revoking their access, he cries about it? Full games that get pulled from Steam are not completely erased from existence on the servers, they're just not available for purchase anymore... How is that a bad thing, how does that make Valve assholes? That's consumer fucking protection.

And fuck Kotaku (yet again, forevermore, etc.) for going right along with the guy, despite quoting the simple and reasonable statement from the Steam Subscriber Agreement: "your removal will not affect the rights of any Subscriber who has already obtained access to a copy of the Workshop Contribution." Yes, Steam users have rights! *gasp*

Besides which, you DO NOT OWN derivative works of Bethesda's game. Believing any different is the biggest farce in any mod community, and it fuels so many arrogant morons in throwing little hissy fits like this. "THIS IS MY MOD, NOONE CAN USE IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!!" There's a difference between common courtesy, which is what you exercise by asking "permission" and listing credit when you incorporate another guy's work into your mod, and legal rights, of which you have none, you twat. Get over it.

Anything you create with Bethesda's SDK is their property. Frankly, you should count yourself lucky that they are ALLOWING YOU to sell it and are so graciously offering you 25% of the revenue for what they rightfully own! Don't believe me? Try this excerpt of the very first paragraph of the Creation Kit licensing agreement (for which the term 'New Materials' was defined as anything that comes from using it):

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit.

Pretty clear, right? Even distributing mods for FREE on the Nexus or wherever is the same as submitting them into Bethesda ownership and control. Oh, but it gets better, going on after that to say:

You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials.

So what he's doing now, trying to claim ownership and getting upset over how he doesn't have full control, crying foul on Valve, blah blah blah... It's legal suicide. You're done! Cry about it some more! Good riddance. Jesus. I apologize for ranting, lol, this is just a prime example of my biggest pet peeve about modding in general. Every so often, for years, I've seen ego trips like this, it's douchebaggery of the highest order. It's a cancer on the hobby.

This comment was edited on Apr 25, 2015, 17:27.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Blood Shard Bans
3. Re: Diablo III Blood Shard Bans Apr 25, 2015, 14:19 jacobvandy
 
Well they have to consider the leaderboards if they want people to continue participating on them. I don't know the scale of the issue, but if you were gaining thousands upon thousands of shards in a simple manner, that's a lot of loot you get without properly earning it, which could easily give you a competitive advantage. It's one thing to stumble upon it and do nothing but think, "woah, that's weird," but another thing completely to go out of your way to try and replicate it again and again and again and again for personal gain. As well as, apparently, go tell your buddies on public forums how to do it so they could exploit it as well. The latter part is what got people banned, and I don't begrudge Blizzard that.

In any case, it seems they were exploiting the upscaled difficulty of greater rifts along with the (now changed) mechanic of loot for the entire party being spawned regardless of whether you were even on the same map or not. Probably caused blood goblins to drop insane amounts of shards for a guy who was inside a high-level grift at the time it was killed. They already closed a similar loophole for experience gain months ago (powerleveling people sitting in town while the group cleared grifts), so I'm surprised nobody has discovered this before. Maybe with the new patch adding more goblin types, they added difficulty scaling to the loot they drop? And of course they balance that to top out at T6 because goblins don't even appear inside greater rifts, but if you could get the grift scaling to apply to loot being dropped outside... BAM!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Killing Floor 2 EULA vs Griefers
9. Re: Killing Floor 2 EULA vs Griefers Apr 25, 2015, 05:19 jacobvandy
 
You don't have 'freedom of expression' in a video game.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Killing Floor 2 EULA vs Griefers
7. Re: Killing Floor 2 EULA vs Griefers Apr 25, 2015, 02:41 jacobvandy
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 25, 2015, 00:11:
More interesting is that they want to censor/ban people playing with mods they don't agree with....

You mean this clause, which sounds like boilerplate legal base-covering? Are you implying you do agree with such content?

Your Mods must not contain any sexually explicit, harmful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive imagery or libelous, defamatory, or other illegal material, material that is scandalous or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of any third party.

It's there so that they cannot be held responsible for what modders come up with. If they get complaints, they'll have the mod taken down from hosting sites and disallow it being loaded on servers. I doubt you'll be banned for playing it while it's available.

They also have a clause stating "Mods must be distributed for free, period." Shouldn't the internet at large be kissing their feet today? Oh, my bad, I forgot positive things are completely uninteresting to the PC gaming community.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Skyrim Free Weekend
54. Re: Skyrim Free Weekend Apr 24, 2015, 18:22 jacobvandy
 
Well, they'd have to completely overhaul their modular file system. I don't see that happening as soon as TES VI, not as long as they're going to still be using the Creation Engine, anyway. Plus, I'm pretty sure that doing so would not only disrupt the entire mod community, but their internal development process, as well. There is no DRM on Skyrim itself at all, you just drag and drop files into it and it loads them. Pirated official DLCs work just fine with the Steam version, it doesn't care where you got them. The same can and will be done with any paid mods. All the workshop integration does is automatically download the files and place them into that folder via the standard Skyrim launcher, which no self-respecting player even uses to launch the game! It's always a shortcut through SKSE, sometimes through the mod manager.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Skyrim Free Weekend
32. Re: Skyrim Free Weekend Apr 24, 2015, 14:49 jacobvandy
 
It's not a 404, it states: 'This item is no longer for sale, but if you have purchased it, you will still have access to it.' Every single one.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Mobilization
2. Re: Morning Mobilization Apr 24, 2015, 13:37 jacobvandy
 
Nobody wears watches anymore, especially not people who have a phone in their pocket. You might as well tattoo "Apple 4 Life" on your forehead.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Skyrim Free Weekend
23. Re: Skyrim Free Weekend Apr 24, 2015, 13:31 jacobvandy
 
That's up to the contributors to work it out amongst themselves. Valve confirms it along with all of their contact info, etc. and it becomes a binding agreement before any money is paid out to anyone.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Skyrim Free Weekend
21. Re: Skyrim Free Weekend Apr 24, 2015, 13:14 jacobvandy
 
Fion wrote on Apr 24, 2015, 12:26:
So who gets what money when a new mod requires or is built upon others? When mods are free you can just thank those mod authors or ask permission and easily get it. It's a collaborative environment, mod making. But when money becomes involved it's a potential legal mess.

If they go about it the right way, all contributors get a share of that 25%. But they won't always go about it the right way.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Launches Paid Mod Support
99. Re: Steam Launches Paid Mod Support Apr 23, 2015, 23:26 jacobvandy
 
jomisab wrote on Apr 23, 2015, 23:06:
jacobvandy wrote on Apr 23, 2015, 22:40:
jomisab wrote on Apr 23, 2015, 22:21:
First off, Steam taking 75% is just insane, insulting, indefensible, and I'm sure a lot of other in- words.

It's a good thing they're not taking 75% then, huh?

Perhaps I should have worded it differently? How about "the content creator only getting 25% is just insane..."

You knew what I meant...


Well, no, that's a different statement entirely. We don't know how much Valve is getting, just that Bethesda chose to give the modder the standard rate (established previous to this whole thing) of 25%.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Launches Paid Mod Support
92. Re: Steam Launches Paid Mod Support Apr 23, 2015, 22:40 jacobvandy
 
jomisab wrote on Apr 23, 2015, 22:21:
First off, Steam taking 75% is just insane, insulting, indefensible, and I'm sure a lot of other in- words.

It's a good thing they're not taking 75% then, huh?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Launches Paid Mod Support
51. Re: Steam Launches Paid Mod Support Apr 23, 2015, 18:03 jacobvandy
 
The Half Elf wrote on Apr 23, 2015, 17:51:
Creston wrote on Apr 23, 2015, 17:36:
Wouldn't 99.99999% of all games prohibit a modder charging for his/her mods to begin with?

That's the big question. Hell even Blizzard went after UI mod makers who were charging money.

Third time I'm answering this, lol... BETHESDA IS IN ON IT. Any other game that supports selling mods through the Workshop will also involve the developer/publisher consenting to it and taking a cut of the proceeds. They even get the final say on what the price will be and how much the modder receives, as per the the Revenue Sharing terms:

If your Contribution is distributed for a fee (whether in-Application or via the Steam Workshop), you may be entitled to receive a portion of the Adjusted Gross Revenue (as defined below) that is collected for the Contribution. The percentage of Adjusted Gross Revenue that you are entitled to receive will be determined by the developer/publisher of the Application associated with the Workshop to which you have submitted your Contribution (“Publisher”), and will be described on the applicable Workshop page.

The Publisher will have the ultimate discretion to determine the suggested retail price for your Contribution. In the case of Contributions distributed directly via the Steam Workshop, Valve and/or the Publisher may choose to offer you price categories from which you can choose a suggested retail price for your Contribution.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Launches Paid Mod Support
27. Re: Steam Launches Paid Mod Support Apr 23, 2015, 15:33 jacobvandy
 
LurkerLito wrote on Apr 23, 2015, 15:05:
Not to mention the legality of selling an addon for a game you license but do not own or are technically not allowed to reverse engineer. Believe me the publisher will put a stop to this or put in a big hurdle for modders because there is no way the publishers will allow this without getting a cut and that is for certain.
Primalchrome wrote on Apr 23, 2015, 14:49:
- Publishers are probably going to go rabid with lawsuits if some modders start making serious cash. Most of them allow modding so long as it is not for profit.

Bethesda is getting their cut. Like I mentioned in my previous post, this wouldn't be happening if they didn't give the go-ahead. You really think Valve would just spring something like this on them without their consent? From the FAQ:

When an item is sold via the Steam Workshop, revenue is shared between Valve (for transaction costs, fraud, bandwidth & hosting costs, building & supporting the Steam platform), the game developer (for creation of the game and the game's universe, the marketing to build an audience, the included assets, and any included modding or editing tools), and the item creator (including any specified contributors).

This comment was edited on Apr 23, 2015, 15:41.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Overlord: Fellowship of Evil Announced
13. Re: Overlord: Fellowship of Evil Announced Apr 23, 2015, 14:26 jacobvandy
 
We obviously have different opinions on whether or not Fallout 3 was a worthy successor... But it wasn't completely out of left field.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Launches Paid Mod Support
7. Re: Steam Launches Paid Mod Support Apr 23, 2015, 13:53 jacobvandy
 
Jesus. Midas Magic is $6, an added companion is $3, armor re-texture is $2, a survival mod that requires you eat/drink/sleep is $4... What do the guys over at the Nexus think of this? You're not gonna put your mod on a website for free when Steam lets you charge for it. What tiny fraction of people who use free mods will pay for them? Say goodbye to having hundreds of mods, if even the tiniest ones (like a weapon skin) cost 25 cents a piece.

Thanks for monetizing the mod scene Bethesda! They couldn't be doing this if you weren't taking a percentage.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Overlord: Fellowship of Evil Announced
10. Re: Overlord: Fellowship of Evil Announced Apr 23, 2015, 13:41 jacobvandy
 
Oh, get over it already. If Codies sold off the IP to someone else known for their co-op action RPGs, this wouldn't be such a [lame] surprise.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Overlord: Fellowship of Evil Announced
8. Re: Overlord: Fellowship of Evil Announced Apr 23, 2015, 13:33 jacobvandy
 
Yeah, I don't get it. They say several times how "it's not Overlord 3" and "it's got none of the mechanics fans of the series would expect" and "we wanted to try something different and see where it takes us." Well, bugger off then! Don't be surprised if nobody likes it after you've used up the goodwill of a cult franchise to hype up your attempt at a co-op action RPG. This is like if Bethesda teased a new Fallout, and it turned out to be a multiplayer team shooter...  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > GTA5 Account Loss Follow-ups
14. Re: GTA5 Account Loss Follow-ups Apr 22, 2015, 22:21 jacobvandy
 
What else do you expect from outsourcing? If they can't do anything about it over the phone, I'm sure <random Indian call center> management doesn't want to spend an hour explaining as such to every single person on the line. They have support calls from 38 other Fortune 500 companies they have to get to! Haven't you seen South Park?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Grand Theft Auto V NVIDIA Tweak Guide
17. Re: Grand Theft Auto V NVIDIA Tweak Guide Apr 22, 2015, 13:57 jacobvandy
 
I don't like the PCSS shadow crap. It's a neat idea, diffusing shadows the farther away they are from the source object, but it doesn't work properly everywhere. Even in their showcase screenshot, there's a tree on the far right that is still blurry at the base of the shadow. And I don't feel its an "improvement" to see that weird distinct border around more solid objects' shadows, like the lamp-post. It needs to blend a lot better to look natural, not just be blurred.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2949 Comments. 148 pages. Viewing page 20.
< Newer [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo