Im curious as to when it started becoming an industry standard to let unpaid people(modders) fixing their games for you?

Users who are viewing this thread

All i ever see is people these days when it comes to games with mod-able content/games is saying "Just let the modders fix it"! It seems to me that any game that has the ability to be modded has severe issues with proper QA and testing and pisspoor programming.

I feel like im just conspiracy thinking but it seems to be the mentality of these devs(and when i say these i mean industry wide not just TW) to just do barebones core programming with minimal QA then just leave it up to modders to fix and balance or to let the players be the QA. Ill use Ark for an example. This dev team does literally 1 test of their patches..."does it launch?". It doesnt matter if thier patch destroyes hundreds of hours of work. "Opps sorry" is the response if any at all. Skyrim has an unofficial fix everything patch and everything else that the devs couldnt be bothered with...same with Fallout4.

Now i know we are only in EA and TW devs have been pumping out quality patches with only a few unstable updates AND have a beta branch we can opt into to help with the whole EA bugs things so i actually have slightly more faith in this dev team than some of the others but my question still stands.

At which point did we start having more faith in random unpaid modders to fix professional gaming companies errors and why is this acceptable?
 
Never.

Modders rarely fix something (obvious exception would be Skyrim), they just offer alternatives. Because they are always optional you rarely see people complaining about it. Most of the time mods don't improve games at all. Imagine you would be forced to play all kinds of mods you usually wouldn't install and suddenly it would become a major annoyance.

For Bannerlord the situation is slightly different because mods sometimes do tackle existing issues, it's a bit pointless though because the game is still ~12 months away from release. If it currently helps people to enjoy the game that's a good thing.
 
It's not an industry standard.

But I wish it was.



As far as a timeline for when developers started integrating modability into their games as a central feature, that stretches faaaaar back into the 80s.
 
Modders can look at any 1 issue that annoys them and spend their day(s) fixing it, TW has a whole game to consider so i dont feel like it is comparable.

Modders have always been a big part of the M&B games, its not that they fix the game but improve upon it, you cannot judge an EA game that has barely been out for a month.
 
There is also the fact that a lot of what makes a game good is subjective, so it isn't as easy to do QA for games as it is for other products (apart for the obvious game must not crash stuff). That said some developers definitely pushed that limit past the acceptable.
 
“Early access is something that we are very familiar with: our first title, Mount & Blade, helped to pioneer this method of release back in 2005. By working alongside our community we were able to deliver a unique gaming experience that players still enjoy to this day. These past experiences have taught us that it is vital to bring players in to help us iron out any issues and refine the game by utilizing feedback to bring it to the level that both our community and we expect.

We are hoping to run a productive and efficient early access for M&B Bannerlord as well. However, due to the nature and scale of game that we have envisioned, there may be various problems or missing features and content during the course of early access.

While I agree that many companies abuse the Early Access model, I think TW does a great job with it. These guys practically invented it as far as I'm concerned. The key difference that I see is that TW uses Early Access to help shape their game to it's final state (making changes and implementing features based on player feedback), whereas other companies (*cough cough* Bethesda *cough*) just release games in absolute crap state (Skyrim, Fallout 4, Fallout 76) that get fixed years later and ignore feedback from their communities.

Modders may be viewed as "fixing the game" right now, but it isn't even close to done. The popular mods I've been looking at tweak parts of the game people find cumbersome (smithing stamina, unnecessary dialogue windows and load screens, tweaks to various variables to help tune the game how they wish), which is great. The ability to have these mods even in this current state allows players to experiment. TW doesn't have all the answers from the outset, they rely on their community to tell them what they want and they find a way to make it work for everyone. I expect the things that many of these mods are trying to accomplish will be in some way, shape, or form added into the base game at some point in the future.

The best part is this game is made to be modded, they built their own engine with modding in mind from the start, and mod tools will be released once the game is base feature complete. Then we'll see some amazing stuff, I can't wait.
 
Modders can look at any 1 issue that annoys them and spend their day(s) fixing it, TW has a whole game to consider so i dont feel like it is comparable.
Basically this. It's like blaming the entire McDonalds franchise for one toilet without a paper towel because "well my mom never forgets to change those".

It's cool that the community can fix the issues that bother them without waiting for developers themselves to step in, but comparing 3 tweaks in an XML file to actual coding done on an actual game engine is hideous.
 
So, we could all circle-jerk about how terrible Bethesda is, and in general how the abandonware approach to game releases is lame. I don't think many people will disagree except those who love to be contrary.

That said: Games are way more complex then they were prior. Games are now sold less as complete carefully curated experiences and often are platforms for a customizable experience.

In some cases, it actually makes more sense for a company to focus on the framework, and let us iron the details. Do I like that? No. However rather than become old men like our fathers discussing the good ol' days where our 8bit games were COMPLETE we could actually acknowledge that the game industry and game design is bigger and more complex then ever before.

Also, we gotta remember, this isn't being done for the love of it. This is being done to make money. That's the economic world we live in. Things aren't done to "be their best" they're done to be profitable. Sometimes being "the best" isn't being the most profitable. So if you don't like the fact that games get released with expectation of modders fixing them - if those games economically sell well and make their investors profit - its an effective business model. In that case hating the developers/publishers and wanting them to "do better" is naive. Nobody is going to leave money on the table to appease the standards of gamers, hah.
 
At which point did we start having more faith in random unpaid modders to fix professional gaming companies errors and why is this acceptable?

Not 'we'. Maybe you and some others, but not 'I'.

Modders help enriching the game and offer alternative, sure. Even for games like Skyrim, I never used the so called "community patch" because honestly I looked at the bucket list of "fixes" it has and realize I had never had or ran into even a fraction of them. Not only that, overtime it becomes something more of "this is what the modders want it to be" and not just 'fixes'.

I don't mean to demeaning the effort of modders cause I use truck load of mods in various game, but I had never compared the work they do to the effort by the actual developers. It's just a section of the players seem to overhype the modding scene as something differently than they actually are. No matter what people says, modder can only make an already good/stable game better, they can never fixed a truly broken game. This includes the bethesa games, I had played those game unmodded, and while mods make them a lot better, the base games not broken, despite the vocal section of mod's fans say.

I had never seen modders manage to fix a truly broken/unfinished games into playable state, and I had run into a few of them. I'll give you an obvious reason why: the base game itself has to be good enough to generate interest for the modders to work on it.
 
Last edited:
Not 'we'. Maybe you and some others, but not 'I'.

Modders help enriching the game and offer alternative, sure. Even for games like Skyrim, I never used the so called "community patch" because honestly I looked at the bucket list of "fixes" it has and realize I had never had or ran into even a fraction of them. Not only that, overtime it becomes something more of "this is what the modern envision it to be" and not just 'fixes'.

I don't mean to demeaning the effort of modders cause I use truck load of mods in various game, but I had never compared the work they do to the effort by the actual developers. It's just a section of the players seem to overhype the modding scene as something differently than they actually are.

Eh, in the case of Bethesda there's huge amounts of literal bug-fixes that the community patched that they never did. Just because you didn't encounter them on your playthroughs doesn't mean Bethesda didn't drop the ball. Every game release and mod scene is unique but in the case of Bethesda there's a very large amount of modded content that is literally fixing CTD's, pathfinding errors, quest triggers, etc that never ever got fixed by the developer despite them re-releasing the game 10+ times.

But y'know what the bottom line is? Bethesda made bank doing it. It profits. It works. The same way the companies that make chainsaws with plastic parts that heat up and melt still make profit, game companies can still do very well doing this. That's the reality we live in.
 
Just because you didn't encounter them on your playthroughs doesn't mean Bethesda didn't drop the ball.

And I didn't say otherwise? But the point is, despite that, it's still possible to play the games start to finish without ever touching a mod. I always finish my first complete run through of elderscroll games with no mod and always enjoyed the experience, that's why I've never reluctant buying those at release. That simply proves those games are not "broken" as the overdramatic community often make it out to be. Am I saying they were perfect? No. I'm just pointing the melodrama tone people tend to use when talking about these issues. And I'm not even gonna go off topic into the cynical discussion of money. Gaming companies are still companies, they are for profit not charity, and you give them money because you want to.

The issue here is that I'm playing Bannerlord in EA because I'm making the conscious decision of wanting to help the developers to address whatver broken faster, so I can see the complete package sooner. I'm not here for enjoyment ... yet, although I would welcome the possibility I can get some enjoyment out of EA, but that's a secondary bonus, not the focus. That's why I'm playing with no mods because I find them counter-productive for the current purpose of me playing the game. When I run into issue and send reports, I don't want the dev to face the possibility it can be a mod issue.
 
So if you don't like the fact that games get released with expectation of modders fixing them - if those games economically sell well and make their investors profit - its an effective business model. In that case hating the developers/publishers and wanting them to "do better" is naive. Nobody is going to leave money on the table to appease the standards of gamers, hah.

Ya except for the fact that we are what puts that profit in their pockets. If gamers werent so ****ing lazy and so lack luster about our complaints and actually put our money where our mouths are and did something like...NOT actually buying a product or supporting a company we loathe(EArts) just because we like the series(EScrolls) i guarantee you those same devs and publishing companies would be changing their tactic.

Minimal work, maximum profit. I ****ing hate capitalism.
 
There's three distinct lines of reason here:

1. There are things that were ostensibly fixed within hours by someone in their spare time - like the looters dialog on map, .
The 1.3 hotfix specifically - made me doubt "few hours" or "spare time" are in TW vocabulary at this time. The financing alone - whether they'll release the game before a specific quarter is up, will make a huge difference in ie loans interest. I have but a small inkling of what it administratively and financially means to run a project like this, and it's enough to give me second hand ulcers.

2. A product that can take in mods and fan content should not be dismissed as a given. The aforementioned Bethesda, despite having been saved by modders - makes such a bank on their broken products, that they've actually taken steps to cut modders out. Lets count our blessings here.

3. Alternatives. Money and time are finite resources when planning a project. You either limit scope, or need to recoup more money. So for one possible alternative we can look at Paradox model, lets pick a conceptually similar strategy/tactics/economy game. Stellaris "Starter Pack" costs $60, and $146 for the whole thing.
While it's egotistical of me, I pray they don't switch model to that.

So while for industry as whole it is an issue, all things considered I'd count TW in the good guys camp together with ie S.T.A.L.K.E.R. devs. Warband playable range, the amount of hours I've happily sunk in Bannerlords already, and timing of some patches earned at least some credit of trust, at least for me. Obviously it's an individual call. I'd point and blame firstly to people who preorder games from serial offenders, but evidently I made an excemption for this product.
 
And I didn't say otherwise?

I kind of took your post as downplaying it. Maybe that wasn't a perfect read. Tone and internet don't always map well.


But the point is, despite that, it's still possible to play the games start to finish without ever touching a mod. I always finish my first complete run through of elderscroll games with no mod, that simply proves those games are not "broken" as the overdramatic community often make it out to be.

I can, and sometimes have to, use broken tools. That doesn't mean they're not broken. I'm going to go load hay with a pitchfork that's missing a tine. I'd really prefer the tine back on it, but my truck is still getting loaded. Most of the Elder Scrolls Games have, without any room for debate, broken functions within them. The extent to which you find those broken functions intolerable is subjective.


Am I saying they were perfect? No. I'm just pointing the melodrama tone people tend to use when talking about these issues.

Internet tends to be hyperbolic in tone, and we also tend to misread tone. That said there is certainly some truth to the point being made, some companies do rely to some degree on modder support.

And I'm not even gonna go off topic into the cynical discussion of money. Gaming companies are still companies, they are for profit not charity, and you give them money because you want to.

Discussing economy isn't cynical, its reality, but that's my point. If you have an issue with what a company does, in our reality, you have to look at it from a profit perspective since profit is the primary motivator. This discussion can't happen without a discussion of profit, because profit is the primary factor. We can't pretend game companies exist to serve our fantasies as their motivator. They don't.

The issue here is that I'm playing Bannerlord in EA because I'm making the conscious decision of wanting to help the developers to address whatver broken faster, so I can see the complete package sooner. I'm not here for enjoyment ... yet, although I would welcome the possibility I can get some enjoyment out of EA, but that's a secondary bonus, not the focus. That's why I'm playing with no mods because I find them counter-productive for the current purpose of me playing the game. When I run into issue and send reports, I don't want the dev to face the possibility it can be a mod issue.

That is perfectly reasonable and I don't really think TW is actually (thus far) really a culprit in what the OP is annoyed by. Only time will tell, but so far their conduct of EA has been fine.
 
That is perfectly reasonable and I don't really think TW is actually (thus far) really a culprit in what the OP is annoyed by. Only time will tell, but so far their conduct of EA has been fine.

Actually i was more prompted to make this thread due to the sheer amount of people on this forums saying "Modders will fix it" not due to TW's track record.
 
All i ever see is people these days when it comes to games with mod-able content/games is saying "Just let the modders fix it"! It seems to me that any game that has the ability to be modded has severe issues with proper QA and testing and pisspoor programming.

I feel like im just conspiracy thinking but it seems to be the mentality of these devs(and when i say these i mean industry wide not just TW) to just do barebones core programming with minimal QA then just leave it up to modders to fix and balance or to let the players be the QA. Ill use Ark for an example. This dev team does literally 1 test of their patches..."does it launch?". It doesnt matter if thier patch destroyes hundreds of hours of work. "Opps sorry" is the response if any at all. Skyrim has an unofficial fix everything patch and everything else that the devs couldnt be bothered with...same with Fallout4.

Now i know we are only in EA and TW devs have been pumping out quality patches with only a few unstable updates AND have a beta branch we can opt into to help with the whole EA bugs things so i actually have slightly more faith in this dev team than some of the others but my question still stands.

At which point did we start having more faith in random unpaid modders to fix professional gaming companies errors and why is this acceptable?
So you're saying taleworlds should forbid modders from improving the game?
 
It's not an industry standard.

But I wish it was.



As far as a timeline for when developers started integrating modability into their games as a central feature, that stretches faaaaar back into the 80s.
  1. It's not an industry standard. - No it isn't, but it's a trend.
  2. But I wish it was. - Are you serious? That's borderline slave work if you look into it at certain perspectives.
  3. As far as a timeline for when developers started integrating modability into their games as a central feature, that stretches faaaaar back into the 80s. - That doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but okay
 
Back
Top Bottom