Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- GWs IP guidelines do not mention mods at all

Creative Assembly does. Makes sense, since it concerns their games.

Which is why I think it's not GW that contacted the modders here. Well...at least the two guys who did say they were.

In the modding community, most don't really care, since most modders don't actually have a patreon. Which is partly why Radious has such a bad reputation amongst them, apparently.

CA has never cared about mods, there is no absolutely reason to think it's them behind the policy enforcement change, unless they've been told they have to by GW.

It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together here and see the relationship between GW changing its guidelines and a mod for a GW IP game getting contacted.

I feel like the thread title is misleading.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like the thread title is misleading.

The thread has been since the outset. It was being discussed in the other IP related thread too.

Billicus wrote:
The modder patreons were never going to last, it's kind of amazing to me that people even thought they could get away with making money directly from mods

*Bethesda has entered the chat*

Togusa wrote:

Billicus wrote:
The modder patreons were never going to last, it's kind of amazing to me that people even thought they could get away with making money directly from mods

*Bethesda has entered the chat*

Well in their case, it was Bethesda making money directly from other people's mods.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Well in their case, it was Bethesda making money directly from other people's mods.

They actually allow you to monetize a mod, as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:
Which is partly why Radious has such a bad reputation amongst them, apparently.

I would say the fact that he steals from other mods and fails to give credit just MIGHT be a more likely reason. Putting beta builds behind paywalls is pretty common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

a couple of mod makers have been contacted by someone. Those mod makers were supposedly asked to remove the warhammer branding from their patreons which they were using to profit/advertise.

History suggests that none of the parties involved would have any trouble naming CA, and have done so in the past.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- They were not made to either stop modding the games themselves, or take down their patreons

Ignoring that making it impossible to fiance their mods effectively pulls the plug on further mods.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- CA are completely unaware of any sort of policy change

No, CA stated that they have not changed THEIR policies. Big difference.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- GW have not taken any action against other mods - of which there are dozens for TW:W alone - in general and neither have they shown any indication of trying to stop mods themselves from being made

You don't actually know that.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- Multiple other Warhammer games have workshop pages, the whole point of which is effectively giving users permission to make and allowing mod support officially

We do, but that's not point of those things. You're trying to link two unrelated things.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- Those other games have not had any action taken against their mods either'

You don't know that either.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- GWs IP guidelines do not mention mods at all, only making games and apps without their permission as something not allowed

Which are, effectively, the same thing. It's like arguing that if GW were to ban all fruit, they didn't specifically say 'apples'.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Seems ironic how you call me a "GW apologist" yet you're misrepresenting the situation to try and make out GW to be in the wrong regardless of what has actually happened here.

Because, and hear me out, just maybe, they ARE?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

And no, It's absurd to claim mods aren't allowed when that's exactly what the workshop is - mods for a warhammer game. Vermintide 2 has a workshop as well. So does Gladius. Mods are allowed and that hasn't changed. What the guidelines say you aren't allowed is making your own games, and what this situation so far appears to be is not being allowed to use the IP to advertise.

Because modding is copyright infringement, as mods are considered derivative works. Since GW's policy now expressly prohibits unlicensed games and apps, this would also include mods. Modding usually is at the discretion of the publisher, however, as the ultimate rights holder is GW, this gets muddled, and could be why CA made the distinction that it was not 'their' policy that had changed.

Further, just an FYI: Modding is a bit odd, as the law gives the rights holder the right to pursue, OR NOT, potential infringements. Some companies choose to exercise one, others the other, though to be blunt, lack of modding support can sink a game in the current market, and I suspect that GW is torpedoing their own potential income here, by assuming that video games work like table top games and people will buy their products no matter what.

It's entirely possible that previously, GW gave the game publishers free reign on the issue, and like animations, are now cracking down.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

You're calling me a "GW apologist" for asking why 2 people (I've only seen 2 mentioned in this thread and haven't seen any others discussed elsewhere) was written as "many"? Really?

No, I'm calling you a 'GW apologist' because that's all I've seen you post for about a week.

If GW wanted modding gone they'd just tell CA to have the workshop pulled from their games.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

a couple of mod makers have been contacted by someone. Those mod makers were supposedly asked to remove the warhammer branding from their patreons which they were using to profit/advertise.

History suggests that none of the parties involved would have any trouble naming CA, and have done so in the past.

Someone contacted them is all we know. It could be GW. It could be CA. It could be a troll posing as either. Another modder contacted said he hasn't heard from GW directly and neither has Radious. So we have no idea who it was.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- They were not made to either stop modding the games themselves, or take down their patreons

Ignoring that making it impossible to fiance their mods effectively pulls the plug on further mods.

Ignoring that no, that isn't what's happened here. They have not "made it impossible to finance" their mods - these modders are still making money on their patreon for the work they've done, that hasn't been stopped. The difference is now they aren't allowed to advertise using the Warhammer Brand itself to generate attention.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- CA are completely unaware of any sort of policy change

No, CA stated that they have not changed THEIR policies. Big difference.

Yes, CA have not changed their Policy. A policy that would be dictated by GW as its their brand they're making use of. It's absurd if you think GW wouldn't contact CA and tell them modding wasn't allowed if that was what was going on here, but would instead just go straight for the modders.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- GW have not taken any action against other mods - of which there are dozens for TW:W alone - in general and neither have they shown any indication of trying to stop mods themselves from being made

You don't actually know that.

You're right, we don't know, that's the point! No one else has come forward and said anything like this has happened other than the 2 involved here, therefore there's no reason to think they've gone after anyone else.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- Multiple other Warhammer games have workshop pages, the whole point of which is effectively giving users permission to make and allowing mod support officially

We do, but that's not point of those things. You're trying to link two unrelated things.

Uhh...what? What are you even trying to say here? A workshop page is implemented as part of a game by the developers, the whole reason for it being there is for users to upload mods. How can that be anything other than the developers officially supporting mods?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- Those other games have not had any action taken against their mods either'

You don't know that either.

Same point as the other one. We don't know, therefore you should believe that they haven't until evidence suggests otherwise.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

- GWs IP guidelines do not mention mods at all, only making games and apps without their permission as something not allowed

Which are, effectively, the same thing. It's like arguing that if GW were to ban all fruit, they didn't specifically say 'apples'.

No, they aren't.

One is making games and apps without a license given to the user in any way and without any sort of official action taken to enable that

The other is making mods using the provisions given by the developer as part of their game. It is within the purview of that game and has been sanctioned by the developer.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Seems ironic how you call me a "GW apologist" yet you're misrepresenting the situation to try and make out GW to be in the wrong regardless of what has actually happened here.

Because, and hear me out, just maybe, they ARE?

ya know back in the day asking money for mods was just a big no no, I rememebr it was a huuuge deal when you started seeing companies like bethesda trying to monentize modding. Now people are upset that the "big evil corperation" has said "yeah mods shouldn't be making money"
ahh it's funny how the world works

BrianDavion wrote:
ya know back in the day asking money for mods was just a big no no, I rememebr it was a huuuge deal when you started seeing companies like bethesda trying to monentize modding. Now people are upset that the "big evil corperation" has said "yeah mods shouldn't be making money"
ahh it's funny how the world works

Thats because our culture has moved into social media / twitch / "branding ourself" business models. Its a livelihood for some people now to profit off of their "brand" that they've created. It goes down even to the tournament organizer levels in local gaming groups where people fight gang wars over turf because people want to monetize their presence and make money off of running tournaments because a few high profile people do it and people feel there is a lot of money laying on the table that others will throw at them if they can establish a proper "brand".

You can't walk into a gaming store these days it seems without seeing someone with camera rigs all over a table streaming games and asking for patreon donations or trying to rack up youtube subs to get ad revenue off of.

People see just how much money others are going to throw at them for doing things like modding and instead of making their own games and their own IP want to latch on to something huge that already has the built in fan base.

BrianDavion wrote:
ya know back in the day asking money for mods was just a big no no, I rememebr it was a huuuge deal when you started seeing companies like bethesda trying to monentize modding. Now people are upset that the "big evil corperation" has said "yeah mods shouldn't be making money"
ahh it's funny how the world works

There's a difference between pay walling mods and having a Patreon/Ko-fi link you can choose to toss a few quid into. Plenty of modders have had a PayPal Donation button or something similar for years (particularly if they had theur own website), but these kind of things were never quite so structured or prominent as they are now, but otherwise the tipping pot has existed for a long time within the modding community.

BrianDavion wrote:
ya know back in the day asking money for mods was just a big no no, I rememebr it was a huuuge deal when you started seeing companies like bethesda trying to monentize modding. Now people are upset that the "big evil corperation" has said "yeah mods shouldn't be making money"
ahh it's funny how the world works

There is a very big, significant diffrence between modders monetizing their works, and big corporations monetizing mods; the fact coroporations only get revenue from mods in one of these cases.

 auticus wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ya know back in the day asking money for mods was just a big no no, I rememebr it was a huuuge deal when you started seeing companies like bethesda trying to monentize modding. Now people are upset that the "big evil corperation" has said "yeah mods shouldn't be making money"
ahh it's funny how the world works

Thats because our culture has moved into social media / twitch / "branding ourself" business models. Its a livelihood for some people now to profit off of their "brand" that they've created. It goes down even to the tournament organizer levels in local gaming groups where people fight gang wars over turf because people want to monetize their presence and make money off of running tournaments because a few high profile people do it and people feel there is a lot of money laying on the table that others will throw at them if they can establish a proper "brand".

You can't walk into a gaming store these days it seems without seeing someone with camera rigs all over a table streaming games and asking for patreon donations or trying to rack up youtube subs to get ad revenue off of.

People see just how much money others are going to throw at them for doing things like modding and instead of making their own games and their own IP want to latch on to something huge that already has the built in fan base.

You do realise that making those videos takes a huge amount of time and the equipment is extremely expensive? People give money voluntarily to creators they like because the money earned via YouTube ad revenue is either little or inconsistent and they want the creators to keep making interesting and enjoyable content on a regular schedule, something that would be hard to do for free. As for your point on modding you do realise that mods range from small fixes to much larger assets? I’ve never know anyone purposely set out to make money via mods, patroons exist because modding modern games (to a decent level) is again massively time consuming and difficult, most large mods released for games would take years without some form of funding. People don’t “make their own games” as again grossly expensive unless you want to churn out terrible barely functional unity engine games. Nobody ever street fights for tournament turf.

People do need to make a distinction between massive corporations monetising mods and people voluntarily supporting creators.

Templarted wrote:

 auticus wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ya know back in the day asking money for mods was just a big no no, I rememebr it was a huuuge deal when you started seeing companies like bethesda trying to monentize modding. Now people are upset that the "big evil corperation" has said "yeah mods shouldn't be making money"
ahh it's funny how the world works

Thats because our culture has moved into social media / twitch / "branding ourself" business models. Its a livelihood for some people now to profit off of their "brand" that they've created. It goes down even to the tournament organizer levels in local gaming groups where people fight gang wars over turf because people want to monetize their presence and make money off of running tournaments because a few high profile people do it and people feel there is a lot of money laying on the table that others will throw at them if they can establish a proper "brand".

You can't walk into a gaming store these days it seems without seeing someone with camera rigs all over a table streaming games and asking for patreon donations or trying to rack up youtube subs to get ad revenue off of.

People see just how much money others are going to throw at them for doing things like modding and instead of making their own games and their own IP want to latch on to something huge that already has the built in fan base.

You do realise that making those videos takes a huge amount of time and the equipment is extremely expensive? People give money voluntarily to creators they like because the money earned via YouTube ad revenue is either little or inconsistent and they want the creators to keep making interesting and enjoyable content on a regular schedule, something that would be hard to do for free. As for your point on modding you do realise that mods range from small fixes to much larger assets? I’ve never know anyone purposely set out to make money via mods, patroons exist because modding modern games (to a decent level) is again massively time consuming and difficult, most large mods released for games would take years without some form of funding. People don’t “make their own games” as again grossly expensive unless you want to churn out terrible barely functional unity engine games. Nobody ever street fights for tournament turf.

People do need to make a distinction between massive corporations monetising mods and people voluntarily supporting creators.

I am a content creator so yes I realize the time it takes to do so.

I’ve never know anyone purposely set out to make money via mods, patroons exist because modding modern games (to a decent level) is again massively time consuming and difficult, most large mods released for games would take years without some form of funding.

I'm in the software pc game dev world professionally. There are many people that purposely set out to make a ton of money via their mods. There is a guy who does Minecraft Shaders (modding minecraft) that per his patreon pulls in over $60,000 a month, and there are several examples of that - enough so where it has become a holy grail for people to pursue.

People do need to make a distinction between massive corporations monetising mods and people voluntarily supporting creators.

I have no problem with that. If creators can find a big profile game to mod and get exposure and make a ton of money off of - good on them! But I also support game studios rights to say "you can't make money off of my IP / title".

 auticus wrote:

Templarted wrote:

 auticus wrote:



You do realise that making those videos takes a huge amount of time and the equipment is extremely expensive? People give money voluntarily to creators they like because the money earned via YouTube ad revenue is either little or inconsistent and they want the creators to keep making interesting and enjoyable content on a regular schedule, something that would be hard to do for free. As for your point on modding you do realise that mods range from small fixes to much larger assets? I’ve never know anyone purposely set out to make money via mods, patroons exist because modding modern games (to a decent level) is again massively time consuming and difficult, most large mods released for games would take years without some form of funding. People don’t “make their own games” as again grossly expensive unless you want to churn out terrible barely functional unity engine games. Nobody ever street fights for tournament turf.

People do need to make a distinction between massive corporations monetising mods and people voluntarily supporting creators.

I am a content creator so yes I realize the time it takes to do so.

I’ve never know anyone purposely set out to make money via mods, patroons exist because modding modern games (to a decent level) is again massively time consuming and difficult, most large mods released for games would take years without some form of funding.

I'm in the software pc game dev world professionally. There are many people that purposely set out to make a ton of money via their mods. There is a guy who does Minecraft Shaders (modding minecraft) that per his patreon pulls in over $60,000 a month, and there are several examples of that - enough so where it has become a holy grail for people to pursue.

People do need to make a distinction between massive corporations monetising mods and people voluntarily supporting creators.

I have no problem with that. If creators can find a big profile game to mod and get exposure and make a ton of money off of - good on them! But I also support game studios rights to say "you can't make money off of my IP / title".

Then if you’re a content creators you’d obviously understand why people try and monetise content? It’s not a cultural thing at all, if you can be self sufficient doing something you enjoy I don’t see why you shouldn’t and it’s a cultural crisis point. Most of your points on patreon are just you assuming everyone is going into them to make money rather than having little or no interest in the game and wanting to improve a product or add items that aren’t available(plus it’s very bad business sense to spend hours on free mods and expect donations after). Most large moders tend to make mods out of passion for the games themselves, you just tend to generalise everyone who makes mods(or anyone who monetises content) as predatory grifters. If a game studio wants to be hostile to the modding community but seemingly ignorant of the reality of making content for modern games, (again content free at the point of access) then surely any flack they take is justified.

Then if you’re a content creators you’d obviously understand why people try and monetise content?

Please refer to my last statement on the matter.

"I have no problem with that. If creators can find a big profile game to mod and get exposure and make a ton of money off of - good on them! But I also support game studios rights to say "you can't make money off of my IP / title"."

For Conquest I put in about $1000 of my own money putting up a website, paying an art team, and publishing a few pieces of content for the game. I didn't get a dime back. It was never my intention to make a dime off of Conquest. Its not my IP.

The modder's end goal, be it purely financial or just something they love that they can benefit off of - is irrelevant to me. All that is is trying to stoke an emotional argument.

Someone profiting off of another's IP is still someone profiting off of another's IP - regardless of if it is purely financially driven, or based on a love of the hobby. One is no more or less better than the other. If the source / author is fine with someone making $$$ off of their IP... awesome! If the source / author is not fine with it, I support them shutting that down just as well, be it a corporation or an indy dev, or a small team in between.

 auticus wrote:

Then if you’re a content creators you’d obviously understand why people try and monetise content?

Please refer to my last statement on the matter.

"I have no problem with that. If creators can find a big profile game to mod and get exposure and make a ton of money off of - good on them! But I also support game studios rights to say "you can't make money off of my IP / title"."

For Conquest I put in about $1000 of my own money putting up a website, paying an art team, and publishing a few pieces of content for the game. I didn't get a dime back. It was never my intention to make a dime off of Conquest. Its not my IP.

The modder's end goal, be it purely financial or just something they love that they can benefit off of - is irrelevant to me. All that is is trying to stoke an emotional argument.

Someone profiting off of another's IP is still someone profiting off of another's IP - regardless of if it is purely financially driven, or based on a love of the hobby. One is no more or less better than the other. If the source / author is fine with someone making $$$ off of their IP... awesome! If the source / author is not fine with it, I support them shutting that down just as well, be it a corporation or an indy dev, or a small team in between.

I’ve never argued that a corporation can’t shut down someone whose profiting off their IP directly or indirectly, I’ve argued against your points that monetising content is the result of a huge cultural problem when it’s mostly because it’s takes a huge amount of time and effort, and that most modding patreons exist as content for modern games takes a lot of time to develop. If corporations and developers want to go after modders who use patreons they can’t be surprised if there is a backlash. No company is going bankrupt because of free at the point of access content linked to a patreon, if a company wants to foster a modding community and the benefits of it then they should be able to understand the reality of it.

Its not a huge cultural problem. Its that in response to the poster I was quoting originally, where modding was not monetized, over time people have seen how much money they can make over mods and the culture has shifted to become more about your brand and seeing how much money you can make from things like modding and streaming etc.

Its not a "problem". Its more the direction has shifted. Five or six years ago, people modded for fun and people streamed games for fun and did battle reports for fun.

Today a ton of people do it for profit because they saw the money laying on the table.

Thats not a "problem". Thats just pointing out a cultural shift.

I'd say it's a "problem" in so far as companies will need to address it somehow.

BrianDavion wrote:
If GW wanted modding gone they'd just tell CA to have the workshop pulled from their games.

Unless their contract with CA prohibits that, which it might.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Yes, CA have not changed their Policy. A policy that would be dictated by GW as its their brand they're making use of. It's absurd if you think GW wouldn't contact CA and tell them modding wasn't allowed if that was what was going on here, but would instead just go straight for the modders.

Not necessarily. Remember that GW and Relic clashed over the same issue, and GW's solution was to go after the modders directly then, followed by demanding the removal of mod support in the following games.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
You're right, we don't know, that's the point! No one else has come forward and said anything like this has happened other than the 2 involved here, therefore there's no reason to think they've gone after anyone else.

Because we've been here before. For every recipient of a GW C&D that comes forward and raises a stink, four or five quietly vanish.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Uhh...what? What are you even trying to say here? A workshop page is implemented as part of a game by the developers, the whole reason for it being there is for users to upload mods. How can that be anything other than the developers officially supporting mods?

That's not universally true. Not only are there games which implemented mod support differently, but also ones that have never 'officially' implemented mod support that have Workshop pages. While this is more common in older titles, it's not actually unknown.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Same point as the other one. We don't know, therefore you should believe that they haven't until evidence suggests otherwise.

Except, knowing GW, it's a fairly safe bet that it is true. You guys keep arguing that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume it's the players that are lying, but frankly, given GW's history, why in God's name would anyone do that? That's like willingly joining Jack the Ripper for a night on the town, and insulting your friends when they say 'you might not want to trust this guy'.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
No, they aren't.

One is making games and apps without a license given to the user in any way and without any sort of official action taken to enable that

The other is making mods using the provisions given by the developer as part of their game. It is within the purview of that game and has been sanctioned by the developer.

For legal purposes, there is no difference between those two things. Most mods are not actually sanctioned by the devs. There's no 'license' that changes hands. The only thing is that the devs, or whoever the rights holder is, have the option to pursue a copyright claim against the mod or not. Several mod authors have found themselves high and dry because of this in the past, when the Devs changed their minds suddenly. At the moment, all modding exists in a legal gray area, whether you take money for it or not.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Ignoring or misrepresenting the facts of a situation to try and fit a "GW Evil" narrative doesn't make that the case.

Ignoring or misrepresenting the facts of a situation to try and fit a "GW Good, Victims Evil!" narrative doesn't make that the case either.

BrianDavion wrote:ya know back in the day asking money for mods was just a big no no, I rememebr it was a huuuge deal when you started seeing companies like Bethesda trying to monetize modding. Now people are upset that the "big evil corperation" has said "yeah mods shouldn't be making money"
ahh it's funny how the world works

Yeah, Bethesda did get bitched about for a few days, but frankly it hardly started with them and paid mods have been around much longer when, to absolutely no one's surprise, Blizzard actually opened the doors on this, as well as Valve dabbling in it a bit before Bethesda decided to give the idea whirl.

BrianDavion wrote:
I'd say it's a "problem" in so far as companies will need to address it somehow.

Im not so sure they need to address it. Its not like 3d printing and wargaming companies.

Either companies will allow it and not care, or they will have a no modding policy. I think both are viable.

For example - I have played the total war series since the 1990s, and I love the total warhammer series and I dont use a single mod. So banning modders doesn't bother me - I'd still play the game. However for others they claim they will give up total war forever if that happens.

You'll lose some people with a no mod policy but I dont know that it matters or how many that is. I know from being in the industry that the number of people that only use mods no matter what is not as high as you'd think.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Togusa wrote:

Billicus wrote:
The modder patreons were never going to last, it's kind of amazing to me that people even thought they could get away with making money directly from mods

*Bethesda has entered the chat*

Well in their case, it was Bethesda making money directly from other people's mods.

Yup, and they had the brazenness to try and claim they weren't paid mods too.

 auticus wrote:

You'll lose some people with a no mod policy but I dont know that it matters or how many that is. I know from being in the industry that the number of people that only use mods no matter what is not as high as you'd think.

Mostly because mods are mainly a PC matter and consoles / mobile games aren't really concerned by that.

I do remember the time when mods were free and someone daring to ask for money for them was despised. Now, it changes a bit more but we still have people in the modding community that thinks making mods for money is dirty.

The culture change is not yet totally done.

Someone with a hugely successful mod and Patreon can make significantly more than the average developer working at the studio that made the game in the first place.

That's not necessarily a problem but it's certainly sure to cause significant disruption in the industry. Mod making can now be a monetary end unto itself, rather than being offered a job with the developer or elsewhere in the games industry being the absolute best result of creating a mod.

As I watched videos about the Star Wars fan game 'Redemption' I realised someone needs to warn Disney their IP is clearly at risk if they don't defend it by shutting it down immediately!

Based on current information, GW would not have a problem with Redemption, if it was based in their universe. I didn't see any links asking for donations, Patreon or whatever.

What are you getting at?

What I find more interesting is that the creator is able to sell SW characters. How does that work? Can't imagine Disney selling licences for that kind of stuff to small indie artists?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Yes, CA have not changed their Policy. A policy that would be dictated by GW as its their brand they're making use of. It's absurd if you think GW wouldn't contact CA and tell them modding wasn't allowed if that was what was going on here, but would instead just go straight for the modders.

Not necessarily. Remember that GW and Relic clashed over the same issue, and GW's solution was to go after the modders directly then, followed by demanding the removal of mod support in the following games.

You'll have to be more specific with this, not sure what you're referring to.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
You're right, we don't know, that's the point! No one else has come forward and said anything like this has happened other than the 2 involved here, therefore there's no reason to think they've gone after anyone else.

Because we've been here before. For every recipient of a GW C&D that comes forward and raises a stink, four or five quietly vanish.

That means you're judging this situation on baseless assumptions, not evaluating it based on what has actually occurred.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Uhh...what? What are you even trying to say here? A workshop page is implemented as part of a game by the developers, the whole reason for it being there is for users to upload mods. How can that be anything other than the developers officially supporting mods?

That's not universally true. Not only are there games which implemented mod support differently, but also ones that have never 'officially' implemented mod support that have Workshop pages. While this is more common in older titles, it's not actually unknown.

The purpose of workshop pages is, according to the steam page itself:

Ever dreamed of seeing your brilliant ideas come to life in games played by millions of people? Now you can, with the Steam Workshop. Here you can submit, find, rate, and download new content and modifications for your favorite Steam games.

Steam workshop pages are for users to upload mods and similar content like maps.

The point of the Total War: Warhammer worskhop page (and other CA games pages), according it it's own guidelines, is mods:

https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Content_Creators#Creating_Mods_for_Total_War_-_Where_to_Start

Similar situation for Gladius: https://www.slitherine.com/gladius-modding

Dawn of War 3's workshop pages guide is a link to their modding wiki page.

It's baffling that you're trying to claim that these workshop pages aren't the developers officially allowing and supporting players making mods for their games.

You'll have to give some examples of games that "never 'officially' implemented mod support that have Workshop pages".

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Same point as the other one. We don't know, therefore you should believe that they haven't until evidence suggests otherwise.

Except, knowing GW, it's a fairly safe bet that it is true. You guys keep arguing that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume it's the players that are lying, but frankly, given GW's history, why in God's name would anyone do that? That's like willingly joining Jack the Ripper for a night on the town, and insulting your friends when they say 'you might not want to trust this guy'.

Who's said the players are lying? That's not what is being said at all. It's your claim that this situation means they're going after modding and trying to stop modding - neither of which what has happened has suggested in any way - that's being contested.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
No, they aren't.

One is making games and apps without a license given to the user in any way and without any sort of official action taken to enable that

The other is making mods using the provisions given by the developer as part of their game. It is within the purview of that game and has been sanctioned by the developer.

For legal purposes, there is no difference between those two things. Most mods are not actually sanctioned by the devs. There's no 'license' that changes hands. The only thing is that the devs, or whoever the rights holder is, have the option to pursue a copyright claim against the mod or not. Several mod authors have found themselves high and dry because of this in the past, when the Devs changed their minds suddenly. At the moment, all modding exists in a legal gray area, whether you take money for it or not.

The content of the mods themselves not being sanctioned is not the same as the ability to make mods being sanctioned by the devs.

Again, you'll have to give some examples of devs changing their minds suddenly, because I expect there's more to those situations than you make it seem.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Ignoring or misrepresenting the facts of a situation to try and fit a "GW Evil" narrative doesn't make that the case.

Ignoring or misrepresenting the facts of a situation to try and fit a "GW Good, Victims Evil!" narrative doesn't make that the case either.

Go on then, just what have I misrepresented? I'm not the one trying to say that in a situation where GW have asked someone to stop using their brand to advertise their patreon, that that then means they're trying to stop mods altogether.

Just let this thread die, it has no meaning anymore since there are no more news about the modders so far.