Nexus Mod Removals - What's Next

[SirTwist]

I find it distasteful, at best, and legally actionable, that Nexus is removing mods. Because even though Nexus is holding mods, it is the mod author who actually holds the IP of the mod, as well as design, etc. And if Nexus removes a mod, for any reason, other than at the author's request, then the mod author can come back on Nexus with legal action. Personally, I feel that removing of any mod should be left only to the mod author, and not the website itself. Nor the owners of the website. I would, if I were a mod author, place my mod in several places, just to be on the safe side, and if my mod is removed from Nexus, then I will tell people where to find my mod. I would rather have options than be limited.

 

[Sixxness]

Easier to just provide a Mega link on the page. The mod was released as a free non-profit, so nothing is taken away from the author.

[sattyre]

A very viable alternative to ASLAL which I am actually finding much nicer, is Alternative Perspective.  It give you all the versatility of ASLAL and more.  It also doesn't immediately destroy Helgen, or start unbound.  I could play basically, the entire game and never start unbound, thus having Helgen as an intact community.  It is here: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/50307

 

I have accounts at moddb, AFK Mods Tes Alliance and Nexus.  Nexus is by far the nicest most versatile platform, but it would be very nice to see a real competetor.  i have a premium account at Nexus, and i would be willing to pay another account for a reliable and versatile account somewhere else.  Unfortunately, I don't see moddb, Tes Alliance or AFK Mods as versatile enough.  Nexus has a platform that has spoiled us perhaps, but any true competition to Nexus would have to follow suite.  And I would happily pay for an account to see it happen. 

I also don't see Mega (or sites like it) as a viable or reliable download location.  It has no investment in the modding community and could disappear at any time without any real warning.

[Eliian]

4 hours ago, sattyre said:

A very viable alternative to ASLAL which I am actually finding much nicer, is Alternative Perspective.  It give you all the versatility of ASLAL and more.  It also doesn't immediately destroy Helgen, or start unbound.  I could play basically, the entire game and never start unbound, thus having Helgen as an intact community.  It is here: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/50307

 

 

I agree it is a pretty good alternative. Not as many of the same starts as ASLAL but very good. My main issue with it is that helgen and dragons are still mentioned before even going to helgen and starting the main quest. I do not remember if this is an issue with ASLAL. If it is as well then my complaint is not that valid. I do really love that it makes helgen a living town for non-dragonborn playthroughs.

[sattyre]

I believe the problem with dragons being mentioned prior to unbound is pretty much universal.  Bethesda didn't make the game to be played pre-Helgen, and i think it would be a massive job to find all the references to dragons  in skyrim.  The newer updates have really expanded the number of starts, and I have abandoned LAL completely at this point.

[Eliian]

20 hours ago, sattyre said:

I believe the problem with dragons being mentioned prior to unbound is pretty much universal.  Bethesda didn't make the game to be played pre-Helgen, and i think it would be a massive job to find all the references to dragons  in skyrim.  The newer updates have really expanded the number of starts, and I have abandoned LAL completely at this point.

That is true yeah. Many off-hand mentions including many that only show up occasionally. I agree it is a great alternative the more I use it.

[theblackman]

On 9/10/2021 at 1:37 AM, TechAngel85 said:

You've confused the meaning of 'reliability' within my statement. Arthmoor is not in question here. AFKMods is not in question. The only thing in question regarding 'reliability' is the ability to sustainability to hosts mods.

I'm not confused at all.  You distinguished between reliability and feasibility and you specifically used AFKMods as an example in the context of reliability.  If AFKmods is not in question, then perhaps you could've used a different example.  But that's not the only thing in question regarding reliability, as I was alluding to essentially this:  

I'm fairly confident we can rely on AFKMods to not arbitrarily, cynically and unethically modify its Terms of Use (ToU) to the point that it alienates mod authors, resulting in many reconsidering whether to continue to use it as a mod hosting service and it no longer being considered the mod author-friendly hosting site it once was.

Yes, modifying one's ToU without first notifying the userbase is unethical.  And that's what NM did.

And being seen as, and actually being a mod author-friendly hosting site is an aspect of reliability.

On 9/10/2021 at 1:37 AM, TechAngel85 said:

...so not sure where all the claims of speculation are coming from?  

Perhaps you're not speculating, but I feel I am due to the absence of any hard data/analysis - but you did provide some analysis in your reply - thanks.  And I didn't ask you to post any private conversations. 

On 9/10/2021 at 1:37 AM, TechAngel85 said:

You all need proof too much. Is Step and our staff not trusted after all this time? 

Quote

STEP Mantra — Help us foster an environment that leverages your enthusiasm within a culture of good humor ... and rigorous analysis!

Perhaps the last three words of the STEP Mantra will answer both your questions quoted above.

And it did occur to me, after reading your question above about trust, that even though I've been a member of the modding community since 2006 and have financially supported STEP, I wasn't trusted enough to be believed when I pointed out a while ago that cleaning the DLC esms was likely unnecessary.  But I didn't mind posting my research.....

On 9/10/2021 at 1:37 AM, TechAngel85 said:

Donations are always open without us having to run a campaign. We don't actively ask for donations; people give what they can, when they can. Most can't or don't, and that's okay. Our services will always be free for all and free of advertising. Since Step's only source of income is donations and the very nature of donations see them ebb and flow, the lights are often kept lit from our own pockets. We are taking some measures to rectify that, but cost is always a factor. That is just business.

The reason you're having to pay for things out of your own pockets is that you don't actively ask for donations.  Please de-bias your mind from this way of thinking.  Last time I got a message from STEP that you needed some cash, I gave you some, along with many others.  I'm sure things would improve if you set up Patreon and KoFi accounts but even if that doesn't happen, asking for things often gets you the things.  If you feel uncomfortable asking for donations, 'volunteer' someone else to do it....

On 9/10/2021 at 3:07 AM, z929669 said:

Step does NOT want to be in the business of mod distribution outside of rare, special cases and personal agreements in writing ...

What about if the STEP community thinks it is a good idea.....?

[TechAngel85]

It's been quite a while since these posts. Since then we've basically decided to stick to what we've been doing. We've simply linking to the mods wherever they're hosted. Since, Arthmoor has mentioned the possibility of putting his mods on ModDB, which we already link to for SRO.

41 minutes ago, theblackman said:

And it did occur to me, after reading your question above about trust, that even though I've been a member of the modding community since 2006 and have financially supported STEP, I wasn't trusted enough to be believed when I pointed out a while ago that cleaning the DLC esms was likely unnecessary.  But I didn't mind posting my research.....

The reason you're having to pay for things out of your own pockets is that you don't actively ask for donations.  Please de-bias your mind from this way of thinking.  Last time I got a message from STEP that you needed some cash, I gave you some, along with many others.  I'm sure things would improve if you set up Patreon and KoFi accounts but even if that doesn't happen, asking for things often gets you the things.  If you feel uncomfortable asking for donations, 'volunteer' someone else to do it....

What about if the STEP community thinks it is a good idea.....?

It might be good for you to know that our v2 Guide will no longer have users cleaning the vanilla masters. I don't know where that discussion took place, but it was decided and is already on the develop Guide.

41 minutes ago, theblackman said:

The reason you're having to pay for things out of your own pockets is that you don't actively ask for donations.  Please de-bias your mind from this way of thinking.  Last time I got a message from STEP that you needed some cash, I gave you some, along with many others.  I'm sure things would improve if you set up Patreon and KoFi accounts but even if that doesn't happen, asking for things often gets you the things.  If you feel uncomfortable asking for donations, 'volunteer' someone else to do it....

Not to worry. By the end the of year we will be in a positive financial standing and will no longer have to pay anything out of our pockets for operating costs. Still 100% donation supported.

[DoubleYou]

Actually, it seems we're mostly in agreement with you it sounds like to me? We have removed cleaning of the ESMs for 2.0.0 guide. Consensus seems to indicate multiple sites aren't a turnoff. Hosting mods is something that takes a lot of extra development, notwithstanding expense, and we really haven't seen any demand for it at this point. As for donations, obviously we could do more if necessary, but we do not currently have any issues on that front that I am aware, notwithstanding past issues. 

It's simply of vital importance to address these potential issues and gather feedback, and I think we have seen very good feedback from this discussion.

[theblackman]

20 minutes ago, DoubleYou said:

Actually, it seems we're mostly in agreement with you it sounds like to me? We have removed cleaning of the ESMs for 2.0.0 guide.

My point was rebuttal to Tech's comment about trust, not to relitigate whether or not to clean the ESMs per se.  But that is good news nonetheless.

27 minutes ago, TechAngel85 said:

Not to worry. By the end the of year we will be in a positive financial standing and will no longer have to pay anything out of our pockets for operating costs. Still 100% donation supported.

I admire your optimism.....

[z929669]

2 hours ago, theblackman said:

What about if the STEP community thinks it is a good idea.....?

Well, the community isn't going to charitably supply us with the legal council and administrative staff of professionals to properly arbitrate navigate the many thorny paths we would be treading as a hosting service for IP. If we were for-profit and actually running a lucrative business, it would be a different story. We're hobbyists supporting a community of hobbyists. That said, we are a nonprofit run by a board, and if the collective board ever did want to engage in such an endeavor, it would be at the overwhelming behest of the community. Even if this were the case ... it's a LOT of work setting it all up, and the maintenance is 10 fold what we already have on our plates.

Possible but not practical for us at this time.

EDIT: your point about 'asking' for donations is duly noted. I will ping you when needed

I personally don't like asking people for $ unless really necessary. So many businesses and other entities are doing this nowadays ... some very worthy. But I feel like we are all inundated with solicitations and prompts to provide survey feedback. I don't want to join in unless absolutely necessary. We do have a modest income source from the community that should sustain us now, given our hosting efficiencies as of the site move in Feb.

PS: I LOVE that this site is free to use and ad free to boot (as are some other modding sites, like AFK Mods, IIRC). I feel like what goes around eventually comes back around.

[TechAngel85]

3 hours ago, theblackman said:

My point was rebuttal to Tech's comment about trust, not to relitigate whether or not to clean the ESMs per se.  But that is good news nonetheless.

I admire your optimism.....

Rebuttal noted and I apologize if I offended.

It's not merely optimism, but a matter of fact. Because of several actions we've undertaken on a few fronts, Step is doing okay. As the others have stated, we'll only carry out campaigns for donations when necessary. I'll also echo Z in that I love that we don't ask for money like others, while still being able to keep our community 100% free to use and free of ads. Including all those extras (like Patreon) also adds to maintenance and upkeep...and this beast is already only being ran with a few people. Whether the donation is time, money or assets, we genuinely appreciate each and every charitable donation because we are truly community supported now.

[Mousetick]

Replying here to a discussion started in another topic, rather than there, to avoid polluting the original topic (Oakwood by Arthmoor).

z929669 said:

Quote

The whole modding process is a 'hassle' if you think about it. Registering on AFK is really of no concern, IMO. We have an announcement and a poll on this. Most agree with my POV, but feel free to post there and vote.

Unfortunately the poll is closed, but it's clear that my vote wouldn't have made any difference. And I'm not sure that it would have been meaningful anyway.

I agree that the whole modding process is a 'hassle', however I'd like to offer a different perspective:

- About the poll: it's somewhat flawed and biased because only the community members could vote. Those community members who frequent the forum regularly. Those people are likely "hard-core" modders and active community members, some of them may be authors or contributors. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe they're representative of the STEP Guides' audience. 32 votes is a minuscule sample of your audience (or at least I would hope it is), and it is a very specific subset of knowledgeable and highly motivated people. 

- About the audience: don't you think people are using your guides specifically because they don't want to deal with all the hassles? If they already knew how to select, install/configure and assemble a collection of mods, and where to find them, and if they were inclined to invest that much time and effort - what would be the point of using a STEP Guide? The "friction" that registering an account on yet another site creates should not be underestimated IMHO (not to mention the security/privacy risks that this entails). Too much friction and casual users will walk away.

To be clear: I fully respect your choice of including mods that are hosted on various sites requiring registration, other than Nexus, but it seems to me making those mods mandatory (e.g. Oakwood by Arthmoor for Skyrim) rather than optional (e.g. Consistent Older People by Winterlove for Skyrim), especially as they are "nice-to-have" rather than essential is a bad idea. I for one do not intend to register on AFK Mods, missing out on the STEP mods hosted there, in the foreseeable future.

I don't consider myself a member of your community. I'm just a casual mod user who appreciates your Skyrim guides and is grateful for your fantastic high-quality work. I recently created an account on this forum. I was initially reluctant, thinking "why bother with yet another account for a forum that I'll visit only once in a blue moon". I finally took the plunge because I'm in the process of "testing" the Skyrim SE STEP 2.0 guide and I wanted to contribute some feedback - as a small token of my appreciation.

Thank you.

[z929669]

4 hours ago, Mousetick said:

Replying here to a discussion started in another topic, rather than there, to avoid polluting the original topic (Oakwood by Arthmoor).

z929669 said:

Unfortunately the poll is closed, but it's clear that my vote wouldn't have made any difference. And I'm not sure that it would have been meaningful anyway.

I agree that the whole modding process is a 'hassle', however I'd like to offer a different perspective:

- About the poll: it's somewhat flawed and biased because only the community members could vote. Those community members who frequent the forum regularly. Those people are likely "hard-core" modders and active community members, some of them may be authors or contributors. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe they're representative of the STEP Guides' audience. 32 votes is a minuscule sample of your audience (or at least I would hope it is), and it is a very specific subset of knowledgeable and highly motivated people. 

- About the audience: don't you think people are using your guides specifically because they don't want to deal with all the hassles? If they already knew how to select, install/configure and assemble a collection of mods, and where to find them, and if they were inclined to invest that much time and effort - what would be the point of using a STEP Guide? The "friction" that registering an account on yet another site creates should not be underestimated IMHO (not to mention the security/privacy risks that this entails). Too much friction and casual users will walk away.

To be clear: I fully respect your choice of including mods that are hosted on various sites requiring registration, other than Nexus, but it seems to me making those mods mandatory (e.g. Oakwood by Arthmoor for Skyrim) rather than optional (e.g. Consistent Older People by Winterlove for Skyrim), especially as they are "nice-to-have" rather than essential is a bad idea. I for one do not intend to register on AFK Mods, missing out on the STEP mods hosted there, in the foreseeable future.

I don't consider myself a member of your community. I'm just a casual mod user who appreciates your Skyrim guides and is grateful for your fantastic high-quality work. I recently created an account on this forum. I was initially reluctant, thinking "why bother with yet another account for a forum that I'll visit only once in a blue moon". I finally took the plunge because I'm in the process of "testing" the Skyrim SE STEP 2.0 guide and I wanted to contribute some feedback - as a small token of my appreciation.

Thank you.

Valid feedback, and I understand your perspective. Although I don't think we should exclude mods that are 'reliably' hosted and free to download (regardless of hosting reg reqs), I do agree that we should figure out a way to exclude such mods from our patch dependencies to effectively make them optional.

[TechAngel85]

2 hours ago, z929669 said:

Valid feedback, and I understand your perspective. Although I don't think we should exclude mods that are 'reliably' hosted and free to download (regardless of hosting reg reqs), I do agree that we should figure out a way to exclude such mods from our patch dependencies to effectively make them optional.

If the mods are now on ModDB, we should be linking to them there over AFK Mods. ModDB is free (no registration for downloading). Arthmoor also told me, personally, that he was planning to put his mods up on their platform:

Arthmoor said:

"ModDB would be a viable alternative ... They're older than Nexus though and run by people who really do care about mods, authors, and the communities they've built. If it helps things with what you guys are doing at all, I am looking to put up the remainder of my mod library there and I don't think they require an account for downloading..."