Paying for mods

Having had some time to step back from the argument over selling mods, I am collecting my thoughts as clearly and as concisely as I can for future reference. If you're reading this, it's because I'd like to present all my cards at once so that we can all examine them more easily.

Firstly, there are two primary conversations I saw against selling mods which were engaged in.

The first involved points like the cut Steam takes from the pricetag and issues like "quality of life" mods (fixing fonts, inventory systems, etc) funelling money to the original developer of a "broken" game.

I don't fundamentally disagree with those arguments, but I think that they're something which can be resolved while still accepting the fundamental concept of modders attaching a price tag to their work. Things like quality of life mods being used to give undue profits to developers is something that the community itself can work around; a free quality of life mod will always outcompete a priced one for convienance, and I think the people making quality of life fixes are more likely not to attach a price tag to those mods in the first place.

I think that the artists themselves are the ones entitled to take the cost/benefits analysis of whether they should pricetag a mod a or not; will it sell well enough that they'll get a cut of the profits? That's for the MODDER to decide, and their choice will be reinforced positively or negatively depending on how well they judged things. Not every mod needs to have a pricetag! But if an artist WANTS to attach one, well, that's their choice.

And yes, there will be scammers, and overpriced drehk, and mods that break your game after you've already paid for them. All that means is that consumers will need to be cautious and critical of the content they spend their money on, same as they should be for anything.

The second argument, and the one which I find inherently objectionable, is the one that states that it is inherently immoral or unreasonable for a modder to attach a price tag or "paywall" to any of their mods.

The keystone of this argument, as far as I can tell, is that because modding is a hobby, modders are not entitled to profits from it. Optional donations are okay, but paywalls are not.

As I originally discussed, I see modding as an art form. I don't really consider this disputable; firstly, because "hobby" and "art" can and do readily cross over, and cross over into monetization as well. I've seen plenty of artists who, while they don't run any proper business or live off of their art, have taken commissions, started patreon projects, or authored ebooks. Art can be a hobby and still be profitable in some way.

The comparison was pitched to 40k at one point. That is, modding is a hobby, and playing 40k is a hobby, but one is not payed for playing 40k and thus should not be paid for other hobbies such as modding.

Ignoring the previous point I've made that art CAN BE a hobby (and a monetized hobby at that), I would say that modding is less like PLAYING 40k, and more like assembling and painting a 40k army. Modding is a technical and artistic endeavour; it involves coding, art asset creation, voice acting, writing for scripts and lore, etc. Modding can CONTRIBUTE to "playing a game", in the same way that assembling an army for 40k can contribute to playing a game, but it is not directly comparable to "playing 40k" (or the like).

Also, remember that people create and subsequently sell miniatures and armies for 40k all the time! Again, an activity being a hobby does not preclude it from being profitable.

Making an argument that modding is devoid of artistic effort also leads to a slippery slope to games themselves not being an artistic effort. As such, I don't think that its an inherently tenable position to take.

So.

I have established my logic both for modding to be considered a form of artistic effort AS WELL as being a hobby, and hopefully illustrated successfully that a hobby is not inherently prevented from being profitable.

Taking these two points, we arrive at my primary opinion: modders are a form of artist, and as an artist it is THEIR RIGHT to price their work however they deem fit. If a modder wants to release their content for free, that's fine. If a modder is comfortable operating only off of generous donations, that's fine too.

If a more conventional artist puts some of their content behind a paywall, that's acceptable, yes? They have created a piece of media which not only took time and effort to create, but which required a significant backlog of time and effort to learn TO create (see the classic "why am I paying you for a logo it took you ten minutes to design" argument).

I do not see how a modder putting some of (or even all of!) their content behind a paywall is any inherently different. Yes, modding is a hobby, but writing or drawing or voice acting or painting miniatures can all be hobbies as well, and even hobbyists are allowed to make money off of their work. A modder has likely invested time and effort into learning how to produce their content; at the very least they have studied the game they are producing content for, and at the most they may be producing art assets, writing, or even organizing a larger team of individuals to produce a final "product", all of which require time and effort in the form of a learned expertise.

Saying that it is "immoral" for a modder to have the same ability to price their work and their expertise as a more conventional artist comes across as misguided at best and selfishly entitled at worst.

Mod consumers are not entitled to free mods from modders any more than art consumers are entitled to free art from artists. Until this points, mods have largely (but not entirely; see Counter-Strike and Gary's Mod, among what I am sure are others) been free because of legal concerns. I'm not sure I really believe a stance of "modders mod solely because they love it and a real modder would never charge for their mods".

Ultimately, my argument boils down to "choice is good", and specifically, "artists having choices of how to distribute their work is good". A consumer's choice whether or not to donate to an artist's box while having the ability to access their work either way is not nessacarily objectionable, but certainly becomes so if the artist is PREVENTED FROM SAYING OTHERWISE. "You can take donations, but paywalls aren't okay" is effectively saying "You aren't allowed to price your own work, you need to let the people consuming it decide whether or not to pay for it afterwards."

And that's what bothers me about the argument; it's seemingly founded on devaluing the creative effort put into mods and insisting that artists don't deserve control over their own work within the medium of game fandoms.

Come an age of mods with price tags attached, I am sure the community will flourish just as it has up until this point (though not to say there wont be some growing pains). There will always be modders who create mods entirely out an interest in creating or sharing their content, just as there are artists who produce copious amounts of free art. There will also be modders who mod solely for the opportunity to make money.

There will ALSO be modders who take advantage of both options; modders who are free to release open content because the money they make off of a few priced mods covers enough of their expenses to justify the free time spent on labours of pure love.

I'd absolutely love to have a meaningful discussion on this topic, and if you'd like to respond to any of these points I'd be glad to hear you out. I'll just ask that, rather than making any sweeping condemnations, you keep a level head and take on the points themselves.