DUST2DEATH
♥♥♥♥♥ Fox
So sublicencing then. You buy, they use.
-
If you have a mod, tool or prefab, please use the Resources section. Click Mods at the top of the forums.
!!7 Days to Die Asset Mod!! ....? What do ya think?
- Thread starter Spider
- Start date
Spider
New member
@DUST2DEATH
The current system right now has donations. A mod has a paid asset and still accepts donations. That's how it is now.
"One is pointing to an object and saying here's some money buy that with it." is sponsored assets paid for by users. That is why I said "-It could not have sponsored assets paid for by users but could allow plain donations"
The current system right now has donations. A mod has a paid asset and still accepts donations. That's how it is now.
"One is pointing to an object and saying here's some money buy that with it." is sponsored assets paid for by users. That is why I said "-It could not have sponsored assets paid for by users but could allow plain donations"
Last edited by a moderator:
DUST2DEATH
♥♥♥♥♥ Fox
No.
A donation to a mod does not say, imply, or suggest one buys anything. Its a "I like your mod and here is something to help you continue to fund your mod". It could buy a person's groceries for a week. Mods with paid assets specifically state against any redistribution or other use.
You've already stated that money changes hands in a transaction to buy a *specific* asset for *use* in a master *mod* that is *intended to circumvent licencing and time and effort for those who cant be bothered to pay and do the work themselves*
A donation to a mod does not say, imply, or suggest one buys anything. Its a "I like your mod and here is something to help you continue to fund your mod". It could buy a person's groceries for a week. Mods with paid assets specifically state against any redistribution or other use.
You've already stated that money changes hands in a transaction to buy a *specific* asset for *use* in a master *mod* that is *intended to circumvent licencing and time and effort for those who cant be bothered to pay and do the work themselves*
Spider
New member
@DUST2DEATH-
Ok Dust me and you are agreeing on everything but you continuing to argue I'm wrong. I agree with
"A donation to a mod does not say, imply, or suggest one buys anything. Its a "I like your mod and here is something to help you continue to fund your mod". It could buy a person's groceries for a week. Mods with paid assets specifically state against any redistribution or other use."
I said no sponsored purchases. Im not allowing any redistribution, said that many many times.
"You've already stated that money changes hands in a transaction to buy a *specific* asset for *use* in a master *mod* that is *intended to circumvent licensing and time and effort for those who cant be bothered to pay and do the work themselves* "
No this is a thread discussing how a mod such as this could be made for the community to use legally. That was one of my starting statements but others have posted "fine print" to show that would not be legal. That is why I now said "no sponsored assets". We are spit balling here, new information is learned, plans adjust and change to adapt. The goal remains the same.
Ok Dust me and you are agreeing on everything but you continuing to argue I'm wrong. I agree with
"A donation to a mod does not say, imply, or suggest one buys anything. Its a "I like your mod and here is something to help you continue to fund your mod". It could buy a person's groceries for a week. Mods with paid assets specifically state against any redistribution or other use."
I said no sponsored purchases. Im not allowing any redistribution, said that many many times.
"You've already stated that money changes hands in a transaction to buy a *specific* asset for *use* in a master *mod* that is *intended to circumvent licensing and time and effort for those who cant be bothered to pay and do the work themselves* "
No this is a thread discussing how a mod such as this could be made for the community to use legally. That was one of my starting statements but others have posted "fine print" to show that would not be legal. That is why I now said "no sponsored assets". We are spit balling here, new information is learned, plans adjust and change to adapt. The goal remains the same.
Last edited by a moderator:
Prisma501
New member
I vote for asking the artist before buying his/her asset if he/she is okey with this way of using his/her work (one time buy free for all), all this assuming of legallity and morallity is no more then. If not, even a discount can be discussed with him/her. Lets say you buy 5 with coalition's money but pay 3 only.
Cheers
Cheers
Kubikus
New member
Morality, as harsh as it might sound, is irrelevant. Different people have different opinions about morality. I only discuss that because I am interested in philosophy.
Because there are different opinions about ethics, we have laws. Either using asset the way we want is legal or it is not. If you have factual reason to believe it is not, present them and argue over them. To me it looks much like you have a moral opinion that what we want is not ok.
If you dislike the concept - just don't join the coalition.
Subquake
Well-known member
And eventually you might end up making Unity Asset Store and other asset seller stores to change their EULA and licensing policy to make mods like this to become illegal and you will end up being sued by exploiting a loop hole in the current legality of things.
You are just begging for someone to slap you in the face so that you finally wake up and face the reality as is. Remember - licenses and EULAs aren't set in stone, they can be changed/updated.
Worst case scenario - we will be forced to use only Creative Commons and free licensed assets.
Worst, worst case scenario - TFP will prohibit mods with custom assets all together, because of pressure from companies like Unity Technologies with legal repercussions of allowing such mods to exist.
P.S. TFP can change their EULA and Modding Forum Policy anytime to prevent such mods to begin with and they should, based on where this discussion is heading to prevent further headaches.
You are just begging for someone to slap you in the face so that you finally wake up and face the reality as is. Remember - licenses and EULAs aren't set in stone, they can be changed/updated.
Worst case scenario - we will be forced to use only Creative Commons and free licensed assets.
Worst, worst case scenario - TFP will prohibit mods with custom assets all together, because of pressure from companies like Unity Technologies with legal repercussions of allowing such mods to exist.
P.S. TFP can change their EULA and Modding Forum Policy anytime to prevent such mods to begin with and they should, based on where this discussion is heading to prevent further headaches.
Last edited by a moderator:
Subquake
Well-known member
Besides, modding isn't just about tweaking some XML files a little bit. Modeling and texturing assets by yourself or preparing bought assets for any game is a huge part of modding from my point of view.
As I mentioned before, this kind of asset pack won't make mods more interesting, this pack will just make all the mods look the same with slightly different XML parameters, because everyone will want to jump on the band wagon and use the asset mod.
Eventually it will probably trigger some form of legal repercussions (you are begging for that to happen), because you are basically suggesting to steal bread and butter for those poor souls, that spend their time in making the assets you desire so much to use for free in your own selfish way.
As I mentioned before, this kind of asset pack won't make mods more interesting, this pack will just make all the mods look the same with slightly different XML parameters, because everyone will want to jump on the band wagon and use the asset mod.
Eventually it will probably trigger some form of legal repercussions (you are begging for that to happen), because you are basically suggesting to steal bread and butter for those poor souls, that spend their time in making the assets you desire so much to use for free in your own selfish way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Prisma501
New member
You are right the artists does make money if the coalition buy it. But only once and then you make it available for free.
You evade again. IF the coalition buys an asset (yes the artist makes money i agree) and it wouldnt get bought without it (no one knows). Than still, what gives you the right to decide thats the income that artist deserves and not a cent more? This artist gives a rats @ss that you will also be buying from other artists. Trust me. All he is seeing is one sale, unlimited use. So you say ♥♥♥ him/her, he should be glad we even bought ONE license instead of paying him/her for the asset as deserved. Again fine by me. At least just-admit-it that this is to ♥♥♥ them over.
You seem to think that creating the coalition will give you the right to detemine what income an artist deserves. Its irrelevant if you are in the coalition or not. Your logic: artist should be glad we even bought his/her sh*t once. We decide that we gonna use his sh*t with an entire community and only pay once (he/she should be really really thankfull we even bought ONE license). So in this (not hypothetical) situation we are in now is, that the artist makes 10 bucks with his asset where he should have made X times 10 bucks.
No "whatif" can deny that you are ripping off income from that particular artist. And the excuse is: well he at least makes some money now. The coalition has decided that is all the money the artist is gonna make in this modding communtiy. Not ok. If used in 5 independant mods, it should be paid for 5 times.
Anyways, good luck. Ive expressed my feelings bout this ripoff, sugercoated as a "everyone wins" situation. Nothing more to do.
Cheers
You evade again. IF the coalition buys an asset (yes the artist makes money i agree) and it wouldnt get bought without it (no one knows). Than still, what gives you the right to decide thats the income that artist deserves and not a cent more? This artist gives a rats @ss that you will also be buying from other artists. Trust me. All he is seeing is one sale, unlimited use. So you say ♥♥♥ him/her, he should be glad we even bought ONE license instead of paying him/her for the asset as deserved. Again fine by me. At least just-admit-it that this is to ♥♥♥ them over.
You seem to think that creating the coalition will give you the right to detemine what income an artist deserves. Its irrelevant if you are in the coalition or not. Your logic: artist should be glad we even bought his/her sh*t once. We decide that we gonna use his sh*t with an entire community and only pay once (he/she should be really really thankfull we even bought ONE license). So in this (not hypothetical) situation we are in now is, that the artist makes 10 bucks with his asset where he should have made X times 10 bucks.
No "whatif" can deny that you are ripping off income from that particular artist. And the excuse is: well he at least makes some money now. The coalition has decided that is all the money the artist is gonna make in this modding communtiy. Not ok. If used in 5 independant mods, it should be paid for 5 times.
Anyways, good luck. Ive expressed my feelings bout this ripoff, sugercoated as a "everyone wins" situation. Nothing more to do.
Cheers
Prisma501
New member
I will check if Kub's worldimage of how the artists think of this is correct.
Since there is a concrete request, ill just email the author of this one and ask. I will post the reply here so we dont have to make assumptions on the artists side/point of view anymore. https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/characters/creatures/skeleton-24305
Cheers
-edit- or even better. Do as doombringer suggests. Bring the question to the unity forums and get an official response on constructions like this.
Since there is a concrete request, ill just email the author of this one and ask. I will post the reply here so we dont have to make assumptions on the artists side/point of view anymore. https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/characters/creatures/skeleton-24305
Cheers
-edit- or even better. Do as doombringer suggests. Bring the question to the unity forums and get an official response on constructions like this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Prisma501
New member
Next thing that leaves me wondering:
Guppies coalition, which is around 80%-90% of all the great and known modders (which have spoken neg on this individually also) are seeing this as not ok to do. Even one of the pimps on a personal note speaks out that its not okey. So except Kub and spider who favor the get as many assets for as lil money possible, which modders are we actually talking about?
Or is this going to be a 2 man coalition? Any others at all that would go about this way? Just curious.
Cheers
Guppies coalition, which is around 80%-90% of all the great and known modders (which have spoken neg on this individually also) are seeing this as not ok to do. Even one of the pimps on a personal note speaks out that its not okey. So except Kub and spider who favor the get as many assets for as lil money possible, which modders are we actually talking about?
Or is this going to be a 2 man coalition? Any others at all that would go about this way? Just curious.
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
KhaineGB
Well-known member
I'd only consider working on something like this if my idea was used.
No assets purchased from engine stores (Unity/Unreal) or websites (CGTrader, Sketchfab). It only contained assets an artist was willing to make and there is documented evidence they knew what it was going to be used for and were OK with it.
That's literally the only way to be 100% legal without a shadow of a doubt.
Spider
New member
@Everyone-
Wow I go to sleep for a while and everyone loses their minds and the conversation goes off the deep end. Kubikus I appreciate your enthusiasm for the idea but your not helping being so confrontational and using personal attacks. If someone continually repeats a argument that has been debunked, proven wrong, misguided or un connected to the topic just ignore them you don't have to repeat the same thing to the same person over and over. It ends up looking like your ranting and the trolls win.
It looks like some people have not read the thread which is understandable (its gotten long). So I would like to recap on what has been worked out and where the idea stands because many ideas have changed since it started.
That's it. When its spelled out and all the emotion is removed it really looks no different then all the other things modders do currently right on these forum
Wow I go to sleep for a while and everyone loses their minds and the conversation goes off the deep end. Kubikus I appreciate your enthusiasm for the idea but your not helping being so confrontational and using personal attacks. If someone continually repeats a argument that has been debunked, proven wrong, misguided or un connected to the topic just ignore them you don't have to repeat the same thing to the same person over and over. It ends up looking like your ranting and the trolls win.
It looks like some people have not read the thread which is understandable (its gotten long). So I would like to recap on what has been worked out and where the idea stands because many ideas have changed since it started.
- This would be a Mod that came in small 5-20 assets Packs and would be grouped in like groups like Flowers, Trees, Hand Guns and so on.
- Each Mod Pack would come with load ready assets for 7D2D and the xml code to spawn and use the asset in game and also include xml examples for modding the asset pack.
- This Mods owner would purchase all Assets legally and acquire the proper license to distribute the assets(like all other 7D2D mods)
- This Mod's owner would not allow any redistribution or editing of the assets(like all other 7D2D mods)
- People who enjoy the mod are free to make donations(like all other 7D2D mods)
- The mod would have a community where people could suggest mod changes(asset edits and fixes) and additions(new Assets).(like all other 7D2D mods)
- All 7D2D players could reference a mod packs asset names and link for their players to download the Asset Mod Pack that needs to be downloaded with their patch xml code.(like other 7D2D mods)
- This Mod will offer links to purchase the asset license to redistribute assets if the player/modder wants to
That's it. When its spelled out and all the emotion is removed it really looks no different then all the other things modders do currently right on these forum
Last edited by a moderator:
Guppycur
Well-known member
This.
Oh wait, this already happens. A lot, lately.
@spider @kub
Never involve money or any expectation of money in a mod project. Find an artist, or two, or three, who just want to build their portfolio and will do the work for free, to eliminate ANY concerns of violations. Profit.
When I joined Medieval I set aside $500 for the project, out of passion, nothing else, with ZERO expectation of a financial return. The result? Our team has never had a fight about money, who owns what, who did what, or who contributed what.
...yall are arguing for a utopia modding community, but that /can only work/ when money is not a consideration.
Just saying.
KhaineGB
Well-known member
Okay, so I think I have a way to explain the issue in a manner that will make sense. I'm going to make 1 assumption and use my own mod as examples.
Some things people complain about in this game are the plants. So let's assume the "master mod" is actually going to be a "Total Overhaul." That means it'll be replacing the billboard plants with actual models, maybe change some of the player "hand" items (like better stone axe models, better gun models, improved bow models, etc). For lack of a better term, it would be a graphics overhaul just to make the game "look" better and maybe even perform a little better if low-poly models are used. I use this as an assumption/example because that is a totally valid use of the asset store and models in a mod, without the master mod being hugely complicated (which I believe is the intent).
So we now have a master mod called "Total Overhaul". It's just models and XML to make the game look pretty. All legal and above board.
I'm working on Darkness Falls and I see this mod. I think it's a great idea, and thus have 2 options to integrate it.
1) I distribute my mod in it's current form, but have edited versions of items.xml and blocks.xml so folks can go and download the Total Overhaul, apply the edited XML files I have included and my mod would work in conjuction with the Total Overhaul.
2) I edit the items.xml and blocks.xml and tell people that Total Overhaul is REQUIRED in order to play Darkness Falls.
Option 1 is legal, because they are two seperate projects, by different people that have the option to be merged together.
Option 2 is NOT legal, because my project REQUIRES the other to function and I don't own the licences to those assets. It doesn't matter that I am not distributing them, I am integrating that project into mine when I don't have the licences to do so.
That's why the master mod needs to stay away from asset stores and hire artists/modelers to create custom content. Either use case would then be 100% legal. Using the asset store would just put extra work on the moderators of this forum to check that every single mod is using option 1, and taking down anything that's using option 2 to prevent any legal issues. Any modifications to Total Overhaul that people release as "patches" would have to be very small. As an example, someone released a bigger backpack mod for Starvation, which was literally just edited UI and a patched DLL. Totally legal in terms of asset store EULA, but any massive edits to that mod might end up being considered either a separate mod, or a derivative work and those are NOT ok by the EULA.
Some things people complain about in this game are the plants. So let's assume the "master mod" is actually going to be a "Total Overhaul." That means it'll be replacing the billboard plants with actual models, maybe change some of the player "hand" items (like better stone axe models, better gun models, improved bow models, etc). For lack of a better term, it would be a graphics overhaul just to make the game "look" better and maybe even perform a little better if low-poly models are used. I use this as an assumption/example because that is a totally valid use of the asset store and models in a mod, without the master mod being hugely complicated (which I believe is the intent).
So we now have a master mod called "Total Overhaul". It's just models and XML to make the game look pretty. All legal and above board.
I'm working on Darkness Falls and I see this mod. I think it's a great idea, and thus have 2 options to integrate it.
1) I distribute my mod in it's current form, but have edited versions of items.xml and blocks.xml so folks can go and download the Total Overhaul, apply the edited XML files I have included and my mod would work in conjuction with the Total Overhaul.
2) I edit the items.xml and blocks.xml and tell people that Total Overhaul is REQUIRED in order to play Darkness Falls.
Option 1 is legal, because they are two seperate projects, by different people that have the option to be merged together.
Option 2 is NOT legal, because my project REQUIRES the other to function and I don't own the licences to those assets. It doesn't matter that I am not distributing them, I am integrating that project into mine when I don't have the licences to do so.
That's why the master mod needs to stay away from asset stores and hire artists/modelers to create custom content. Either use case would then be 100% legal. Using the asset store would just put extra work on the moderators of this forum to check that every single mod is using option 1, and taking down anything that's using option 2 to prevent any legal issues. Any modifications to Total Overhaul that people release as "patches" would have to be very small. As an example, someone released a bigger backpack mod for Starvation, which was literally just edited UI and a patched DLL. Totally legal in terms of asset store EULA, but any massive edits to that mod might end up being considered either a separate mod, or a derivative work and those are NOT ok by the EULA.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spider
New member
Man!
I tell ya! I go to work and boom blows up again. This is why I asked for this to be closed. Let me try and help.
First Kubikus I have to admit they are right you are not helping in fact I brought some of them around and you turned them back away again. There is a reason I made my own thread to discus this and didn't jump in on one of yours, you can come off very aggressive in forum chat form and that is not always a benefit when trying to win hearts and minds.
Second I will be managing this mod not Kubikus(not sure yet if legally it can even be a team) so though he is ineffectively trying to argue for my side please do not assume his words and actions are mine or connected to any future mod made from these discussions, they are not.
@Guppycur -
Yes I was thinking after I buy what I need for TS I would just start working on what I think would be the most popular free assets(but they to will still not be allowed to be redistributed) Also about hiring or working with an artist, I'm not against it at all and would happily do it if it was available to me but between life and TS and this new mod I don't have the time to search out artist that could & would be interested. If you do I would be happy to showcase and reimburse them for their work of course.
@TSBX-
Between here and what I have looked into I don't see any legally problems left in the idea, they have been addressed and the idea adjusted. If you do please let me know.
O! and I think the mod name might be STUFF. Because thats what it will be just stuff to load in game.
I tell ya! I go to work and boom blows up again. This is why I asked for this to be closed. Let me try and help.
First Kubikus I have to admit they are right you are not helping in fact I brought some of them around and you turned them back away again. There is a reason I made my own thread to discus this and didn't jump in on one of yours, you can come off very aggressive in forum chat form and that is not always a benefit when trying to win hearts and minds.
Second I will be managing this mod not Kubikus(not sure yet if legally it can even be a team) so though he is ineffectively trying to argue for my side please do not assume his words and actions are mine or connected to any future mod made from these discussions, they are not.
@Guppycur -
Yes I was thinking after I buy what I need for TS I would just start working on what I think would be the most popular free assets(but they to will still not be allowed to be redistributed) Also about hiring or working with an artist, I'm not against it at all and would happily do it if it was available to me but between life and TS and this new mod I don't have the time to search out artist that could & would be interested. If you do I would be happy to showcase and reimburse them for their work of course.
@TSBX-
Between here and what I have looked into I don't see any legally problems left in the idea, they have been addressed and the idea adjusted. If you do please let me know.
O! and I think the mod name might be STUFF. Because thats what it will be just stuff to load in game.
Last edited by a moderator: