Evolve Won't Support Mods At Launch

| 23 May 2014 18:00
evolve - jan first look screenshots (11)

Turtle Rock says Evolve might implement support for mods post-launch but it won't be there out of the gate.

The best online shooters, or at least the most durable, tend to be those that support mods. Mods allow creative (or bored) fans the opportunity to change up the game, making it into something different - and often, something better. Some mods are simple while others are complete overhauls, and the odds are pretty good that if you've spent any meaningful amount of time shooting at other people online, you've got your favorites.

But when Turtle Rock unleashes Evolve on the world later this year, it will do so without mod support. "We're not against it," studio co-founder Phil Robb told Rock, Paper, Shotgun. "I'm a big fan of that kind of stuff. I mean, if it ends up coming to be, then that's awesome. But we're still very much in development. I don't think we have anything concrete yet."

It's not exactly the most unambiguous answer to a question I've ever heard, but when Robb was pressed about whether that meant mods won't be considered until after launch, he said, "Probably, yeah."

As RPS pointed out, Turtle Rock has been successful but it's not a huge studio, and it's developing the game for both next-gen consoles and the PC on its own, which is a pretty heavily workload. But while Evolve will offer multiple player classes and alternate modes of play, the basic underlying game seems pretty narrowly focused, and that could prove problematic in the long run.

Turtle Rock announced yesterday that Evolve will launch on October 21 for the Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC.

Source: Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Post Comment

You must be logged in to post. Log In

@Rozalia1
Mate, have you ever actually played a mod? There are claims (such as modder being rip offs or lazy) that you can not make if you have. I have said it before and I will say it again.
There are modders there that can make DICE and Crytek's best engineers commit sepuku.

You do not HAVE to release modding tools, thogh they help. Skyrim already had some decent creations even BEFORE Bethesda gave out thos programmes. People are making more ambitious games then pretty much all your AAA games from STALKER, which has shit tools. And whats left of the company SUPPORTS them, as that is what they can do.

I would also rather see some proof of why modding will harm sales. So far we have one developer sayin they help, a great deal of SUCCESSFUL developers openly supporting them.
It is popular knowledge that mods helped the PC version of Skyrim, they helped STALKER and SURE as hell helped me when I bought The Orange Box in 2007.

All a dev has to do:
- Respect modders.
- Dont mess with them or stop them.
- *If possible release some tools*

FumblesO'brian:

Oh sorry! I misread the information then, I thought Valve amalgamated TR into them so it would be made under the valve umbrella.

I guess lets hope that Turtle look back on L4D and L4D2 and see how the mod support improved the quality and lifespan of the games.

They did, up until L4D's release. Since then, Turtle Rock has had no involvement with L4D except for making some DLC.

All developers should take note of the benefits from adding modability, unless they intend to sell stuff like cosmetic DLC, which has me worried for Turtle Rock. This type of game seems so likely to have that. People will be angry if it happens and there's no mod support in sight.

Easton Dark:

FumblesO'brian:
Both these situations will be improved with modding, which if they are the same people that made L4D2, most likely modding will be added at the end

>:l

Easton Dark:
Valve took over development of L4D. Turtle Rock is now independent. Valve has the mod support history, not Turtle Rock.

Valve added the mod support to 1 and made 2 themselves. Turtle Rock was dissolved at that time.

Oh sorry! I misread the information then, I thought Valve amalgamated TR into them so it would be made under the valve umbrella.

I guess lets hope that Turtle look back on L4D and L4D2 and see how the mod support improved the quality and lifespan of the games.

FumblesO'brian:
Both these situations will be improved with modding, which if they are the same people that made L4D2, most likely modding will be added at the end

>:l

Easton Dark:
Valve took over development of L4D. Turtle Rock is now independent. Valve has the mod support history, not Turtle Rock.

Valve added the mod support to 1 and made 2 themselves. Turtle Rock was dissolved at that time.

The way this game sounds most of the DLC's will change the cosmetics of the game, and if they are good then everyone will be happy. If they are overpriced, see 20$ for a reskin of the monster, and really not well done then noone wins. Both these situations will be improved with modding, which if they are the same people that made L4D2, most likely modding will be added at the end so I'd wait for the release before creating a big song and dance about it, but don't just say nothing about it let them know that alot of people want and like modding in games.

Fact of the matter is that 1 team of Developers CANT cater for all needs, some people may want to play as a giant pony or a monster from a movie/anime. Allowing the community to cater for this demand helps out everyone so the Developers can then concentrate on more maps, game fixes, and new game modes etc etc. As long as the mods don't skew the game for the person running the mod then there is no issue and even with online games custom skins should be perfectly acceptable as they only affect people who go out of their way to be affected and make a big fuss about it(wowzers).

With people discussing if mods are required or not I think they symbiotic . A good game with good mod support is beautiful and both extend the life of the other and overall generate not only money but GOODWILL which is hard to get nowdays with all the shoddy practices going on in a blatant attempt to keep increasing profits for shareholders and not focusing on making well crafted, finish and polished games, See major bugs in big games released this year (BF4, ESO etc etc).

Rozalia1:

NuclearKangaroo:
modders buy their games, they can do whatever they please with em

Wrong.

so if i buy the mona lisa i can doodle on it as i please, but if i buy a copy of a game i cant modify it? that makes no sense

Rozalia1:

NuclearKangaroo:
look according to your logic, if i take a picture of the mona lisa and draw a moustache over it, im vandalizing the mona lisa, despite the fact my childish behaviour does not affect the original work in any way shape or form, if i mod my copy of the game, nobody else is affected, if that was the case when you played L4D2 youd heard the yakety sax theme each time a jockey jumped on you, like it does in my game

You are misinterpreting what I'm saying to create your own example to paint me in a certain manner.

really?, because you said

So if I went up to the Mona Lisa and doodled all over it I'd not be vandalising it?

you are talking about drawing on THE mona lisa and ruining the original painting for future generations to enjoy

i mod a game and you are free to enjoy the base game unmodded, what i do with my copy does not affect you

Rozalia1:

NuclearKangaroo:
i dont have complete statistics, but this evidence PROVES mods CAN increase your sales substantially, and even change the gaming landscape

and since these mods and many others (like team fortress) initiated such significant trends in the gaming industry i dont think much else needs to be said

So you have no real evidence on the matter as I thought. If it actually can is irrelevant as something like that could well be a rare anomaly you can't easily replicate.

Anecdotes don't count as evidence, and definitely aren't things that can't be argued against like you seem to imply...a lot more does in fact have to be said yes before it has any weight.

you mean like Call of Duty?

one could argue making modern military shooters is hopelessly trying to replicate the anomaly that is the COD series, cant devs try to replicate the kind of modding community games like HL and Skyrim have? and unlike trying to replicate COD, this move arguably benefits everyone

heres one truth tough, anomaly or not, these mods exist, they are extremely popular, and games based on these mods exist, which are also incredibly popular

and all of this happened in part because mod tools that allowed the community to create upon a game, existed

and multiple success stories of mod exist, CS, TF and Dota are the more prominent, but theres also games like red orchestra, natural selection, chivalry, insurgency, etc

my not adding mod tools, these "anomalies" cant continue to exist, and we all would be worse because of it

also did you ignore my argument about art intervention on purpose? it seems like it, because it completely destroys your argument about the purity of an artist's creation

Charcharo:
It is on me, yet I dont have access nor will I try to find such data. I do know that some devs do support it and on purpose. Sergei Burkatovski from WarGaming always said that they do take into account what modders do as it is free ideas/implementations for them and some people like it.
People like it => more player => more money.
Same with GSC, which even release beta and alpha versions of their games. They take many of the MODDERS ideas and implement them.

You can't make the claim it results in more money all round if you don't have the figures for it, and stating that you ain't going to look for them (because you know you can't find them) doesn't excuse that. Businesses want facts to make decisions, not opinions from certain parts of the gaming community that wants benefits reaped upon them.

Charcharo:

I again disagree. So what if they use the engine and models and even voice acting? Is it a different game? Yes. Question settled.

You want to put them over as not simply mods and as games? Alright than why don't plenty of people out there sell games using models, voice acting, and so on from other games? Limbo of the Lost did it yes, but we know how that ended up.

NuclearKangaroo:
modders buy their games, they can do whatever they please with em

Wrong.

NuclearKangaroo:
look according to your logic, if i take a picture of the mona lisa and draw a moustache over it, im vandalizing the mona lisa, despite the fact my childish behaviour does not affect the original work in any way shape or form, if i mod my copy of the game, nobody else is affected, if that was the case when you played L4D2 youd heard the yakety sax theme each time a jockey jumped on you, like it does in my game

You are misinterpreting what I'm saying to create your own example to paint me in a certain manner.

NuclearKangaroo:
i dont have complete statistics, but this evidence PROVES mods CAN increase your sales substantially, and even change the gaming landscape

and since these mods and many others (like team fortress) initiated such significant trends in the gaming industry i dont think much else needs to be said

So you have no real evidence on the matter as I thought. If it actually can is irrelevant as something like that could well be a rare anomaly you can't easily replicate.

Anecdotes don't count as evidence, and definitely aren't things that can't be argued against like you seem to imply...a lot more does in fact have to be said yes before it has any weight.

Rozalia1:

Charcharo:

As for increase in sales. It just does.

Yeah you'll need something a bit more substantial than that. Businesses go by figures not off hand remarks.

NuclearKangaroo, Charcharo, and Strazdas:
Mona Lisa stuff

You can by all means create your own little version yes however you and the others are missing an important fact. Those "modded" Lisa's shall we say do not use any part of the original physically in their creation. They are based on the original, but are of original construction.
Modders on the other hand use the original in their works either by making use of resources located in the game, or by adding their own on top... that is vandalising art. Like if I were to draw my own painting on the back of the Mona Lisa, were I to break parts of it to create my own work, or were I to glue stuff to it to than proclaim it my own creation.

Yes if you bought the Mono Lisa you could vandalise it yes, don't see how that means anything. Modders don't own the rights of the games they mod so its a moot point.

modders buy their games, they can do whatever they please with em

look according to your logic, if i take a picture of the mona lisa and draw a moustache over it, im vandalizing the mona lisa, despite the fact my childish behaviour does not affect the original work in any way shape or form, if i mod my copy of the game, nobody else is affected, if that was the case when you played L4D2 youd heard the yakety sax theme each time a jockey jumped on you, like it does in my game

apocalyptica uses the same songs as metallica, are they vandalizing metallica's songs? scarface from 1983 used the same basic premise and name as the movie scarface from 1932, are they vandalizing the original film?

these are not brand new works, they build upon parts of existing works, hell what about art intervention?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_intervention

Rozalia1:

NuclearKangaroo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(video_gaming)#Unforeseen_consequences_of_modding

"In early 2012, the DayZ modification for ARMA 2 was released and caused a massive increase in sales for the three-year-old game, putting it in the top spot for online game sales for a number of months and selling over 300,000 units for the game."

Oh boy one example. Why don't you give me percentages on the amount of games have benefited in dramatic increase in sales due to the existence of mods. What is the average increase in % of sales? How many mods are required to spike sales? What is the different percentage in sales between genres.
If you're going to lecture a business in their decisions than you better have some hard, and substantial evidence to prove them wrong.

NuclearKangaroo:
and lets not forget some of the most popular games ever created, such as CS and Dota, are mods, and games based on these mods, like LoL and CoD are ALSO some of the most popular games ever

Popular or not it is disrespectful that people can hold such jobbers in such high esteem, above the original creators even. Also a couple of examples don't prove anything, you need much more than that.

i dont have complete statistics, but this evidence PROVES mods CAN increase your sales substantially, and even change the gaming landscape

and since these mods and many others (like team fortress) initiated such significant trends in the gaming industry i dont think much else needs to be said

Rozalia1:

Charcharo:
Wont argue bussiness numbers with you. If Bethesda Software, Valve, GSC, WarGaming, Gaijin, Tripwire and some others support it and seem to stand by it, then there is a reason.

Means nothing. Its on you to provide the figures and as you simply can't you don't have a leg to stand on.

Charcharo:
As for your "Vandalism" arguement... you do know that the original is intact, right? In many cases, those mods that I talk about are either standalone (Minerva, Black Mesa, and Lost Alpha) or at least have standalone launchers that do not mess with the original game (RtCW, some other STALKER and HL mods) OR are so incredibly easy to switch on and off (Skyrim, STALKER and Doom) that playing the original game is 1 minute away.

If it uses any physical aspect of the original game in its own development than it is vandalising. If it doesn't than it isn't a mod.
You want videogames to be art, yet don't treat it like art? Odd to say the least.

Charcharo:
Besides, you DID buy the game, didnt you? In the worst case scenario (which happened to me once) you can just reinstall the game...
Or if you do not want to mod the original game, then do not :P . That works too.

"Than don't do it" isn't a valid argument.

Charcharo:
As for your last point... I do not understand it at all? How is that disrespectful?
They are games.

That was in regards to the notion of modders > original creators thing that is often proclaimed. It is disrespectful to cheer on a jobber when all they've done is stolen/ripped off the gimmicks, and work of the low/midcarders out there.

It is on me, yet I dont have access nor will I try to find such data. I do know that some devs do support it and on purpose. Sergei Burkatovski from WarGaming always said that they do take into account what modders do as it is free ideas/implementations for them and some people like it.
People like it => more player => more money.
Same with GSC, which even release beta and alpha versions of their games. They take many of the MODDERS ideas and implement them.

As for the second point: I 100% disagree and do start to wonder whether you ever played a mod. It is not. The original is intact. The analogy with Mona Lisa is impossible too. It is not one piece of art killing another. It is one giving birth to another. Simple as that.

"Then Dont do it" is a valid. Sergei uses it often :D .

On the last part:
Uhm, this is ineteresting. But here is the thing:
What does Counter Strike have in common (now, especially) with Half Life?
What does Left 5 Dead have with Counter Striker?
What does Killing Floor have with Unreal 2004?

I see games. That is like saying Bioshock Infinite disrespects Untreal 3... Only the engine is the same.

And the last part seems to be some kind of a jab at those modders that dont need/have the money to afford custom art/models/voice actors.
I again disagree. So what if they use the engine and models and even voice acting? Is it a different game? Yes. Question settled.

Charcharo:
Wont argue bussiness numbers with you. If Bethesda Software, Valve, GSC, WarGaming, Gaijin, Tripwire and some others support it and seem to stand by it, then there is a reason.

Means nothing. Its on you to provide the figures and as you simply can't you don't have a leg to stand on.

Charcharo:
As for your "Vandalism" arguement... you do know that the original is intact, right? In many cases, those mods that I talk about are either standalone (Minerva, Black Mesa, and Lost Alpha) or at least have standalone launchers that do not mess with the original game (RtCW, some other STALKER and HL mods) OR are so incredibly easy to switch on and off (Skyrim, STALKER and Doom) that playing the original game is 1 minute away.

If it uses any physical aspect of the original game in its own development than it is vandalising. If it doesn't than it isn't a mod.
You want videogames to be art, yet don't treat it like art? Odd to say the least.

Charcharo:
Besides, you DID buy the game, didnt you? In the worst case scenario (which happened to me once) you can just reinstall the game...
Or if you do not want to mod the original game, then do not :P . That works too.

"Than don't do it" isn't a valid argument.

Charcharo:
As for your last point... I do not understand it at all? How is that disrespectful?
They are games.

That was in regards to the notion of modders > original creators thing that is often proclaimed. It is disrespectful to cheer on a jobber when all they've done is stolen/ripped off the gimmicks, and work of the low/midcarders out there.

Rozalia1:

Charcharo:

As for increase in sales. It just does.

Yeah you'll need something a bit more substantial than that. Businesses go by figures not off hand remarks.

NuclearKangaroo, Charcharo, and Strazdas:
Mona Lisa stuff

NuclearKangaroo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(video_gaming)#Unforeseen_consequences_of_modding

"In early 2012, the DayZ modification for ARMA 2 was released and caused a massive increase in sales for the three-year-old game, putting it in the top spot for online game sales for a number of months and selling over 300,000 units for the game."

NuclearKangaroo:
and lets not forget some of the most popular games ever created, such as CS and Dota, are mods, and games based on these mods, like LoL and CoD are ALSO some of the most popular games ever

Popular or not it is disrespectful that people can hold such jobbers in such high esteem, above the original creators even. Also a couple of examples don't prove anything, you need much more than that.

If you are going to argue mods, I suggest playing some yourself :)

Wont argue bussiness numbers with you. If Bethesda Software, Valve, GSC, WarGaming, Gaijin, Tripwire and some others support it and seem to stand by it, then there is a reason.

As for your "Vandalism" arguement... you do know that the original is intact, right? In many cases, those mods that I talk about are either standalone (Minerva, Black Mesa, and Lost Alpha) or at least have standalone launchers that do not mess with the original game (RtCW, some other STALKER and HL mods) OR are so incredibly easy to switch on and off (Skyrim, STALKER and Doom) that playing the original game is 1 minute away.
Besides, you DID buy the game, didnt you? In the worst case scenario (which happened to me once) you can just reinstall the game...
Or if you do not want to mod the original game, then do not :P . That works too.

As for your last point... I do not understand it at all? How is that disrespectful?
They are games.

Charcharo:

As for increase in sales. It just does.

Yeah you'll need something a bit more substantial than that. Businesses go by figures not off hand remarks.

NuclearKangaroo, Charcharo, and Strazdas:
Mona Lisa stuff

You can by all means create your own little version yes however you and the others are missing an important fact. Those "modded" Lisa's shall we say do not use any part of the original physically in their creation. They are based on the original, but are of original construction.
Modders on the other hand use the original in their works either by making use of resources located in the game, or by adding their own on top... that is vandalising art. Like if I were to draw my own painting on the back of the Mona Lisa, were I to break parts of it to create my own work, or were I to glue stuff to it to than proclaim it my own creation.

Yes if you bought the Mono Lisa you could vandalise it yes, don't see how that means anything. Modders don't own the rights of the games they mod so its a moot point.

NuclearKangaroo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(video_gaming)#Unforeseen_consequences_of_modding

"In early 2012, the DayZ modification for ARMA 2 was released and caused a massive increase in sales for the three-year-old game, putting it in the top spot for online game sales for a number of months and selling over 300,000 units for the game."

Oh boy one example. Why don't you give me percentages on the amount of games have benefited in dramatic increase in sales due to the existence of mods. What is the average increase in % of sales? How many mods are required to spike sales? What is the different percentage in sales between genres.
If you're going to lecture a business in their decisions than you better have some hard, and substantial evidence to prove them wrong.

NuclearKangaroo:
and lets not forget some of the most popular games ever created, such as CS and Dota, are mods, and games based on these mods, like LoL and CoD are ALSO some of the most popular games ever

Popular or not it is disrespectful that people can hold such jobbers in such high esteem, above the original creators even. Also a couple of examples don't prove anything, you need much more than that.

Rozalia1:

Charcharo:

Thing is, mods seem to mean MORE sales then LESS sales. See STALKER and Skyrim and Half Life 1/2 as clear examples...
In other words they are doing a mistake if they want more money.

And actually I would not be scorning them if it wasnt for this. Everytime I hear such an article, it means no modding support and probably even a stance against them.
And after the BullShit DICE said ... yeah....

As for harming art... nope. Mods always mean you yourself had installed them. And the good mods I always talk about but you never ever try them are usually their own games...

So you have two games as examples? Where are the figures pointing out the connection between increased sales being as a result of mods? Where is the data that encompasses 100+ games to show this connection between mods = sales +by X%?

So if I went up to the Mona Lisa and doodled all over it I'd not be vandalising it? If you're going to call videogames art than be ready for there being people who will treat it like art. Why would they give tools to vandalise their work so a couple of bush league kiddies can knock something up, and than be praised more than the creators themselves for their little project? I mean look at this thread itself with people saying modders put devs to shame...what a joke.

Were those jobbers actually any good they wouldn't need to ride the coattails of low/midcarders to push out "their" "art".

thats an awful analogy, you are talking about someone doodling over THE mona lisa, and in the original portrait in the louvre, but someone reinterpreting the original work? painting your own mona lisa or taking an image of it and photoshop it a little? why yes thats perfectly valid

http://www.deviantart.com/?q=mona+lisa

the history of art is full of reinsterpretations of previous works and mods can be seen just like that, re-interpretations

Apocalyptica is a tribute band to Metallica, they play the same songs as Metallica but with classic instruments

the 1983 film scarface is a reimagining of the 1932 film of the same name

hell even poker has different variants and rules

why cant games then have different rules? different re-interpretations? and even ignoring all this, if we were to pretend for a single moment that re-interpretations of existing works is not a thing, and video games were an anomaly, would that discredit them as an art form? i could doodle over the mona lisa, that doesnt retroactively make the painting not-art, and if i bought the mona lisa from the louvre id have the right to draw a moustache on her if i wanted to, screw the world

your example doesnt make sense on any level

oh and if you needed more examples mods increase sales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(video_gaming)#Unforeseen_consequences_of_modding

"In early 2012, the DayZ modification for ARMA 2 was released and caused a massive increase in sales for the three-year-old game, putting it in the top spot for online game sales for a number of months and selling over 300,000 units for the game."

and lets not forget some of the most popular games ever created, such as CS and Dota, are mods, and games based on these mods, like LoL and CoD are ALSO some of the most popular games ever

Strazdas:

NuclearKangaroo:

- mods DO NOT affect your DLC sales, as Skyrim proved

it does if your DLC is worse than texture mods done in less than a day.

you might be right, let me rephrase that

- mods DO NOT affect your QUALITY DLC sales, as Skyrim proved

Rozalia1:

Charcharo:

Thing is, mods seem to mean MORE sales then LESS sales. See STALKER and Skyrim and Half Life 1/2 as clear examples...
In other words they are doing a mistake if they want more money.

And actually I would not be scorning them if it wasnt for this. Everytime I hear such an article, it means no modding support and probably even a stance against them.
And after the BullShit DICE said ... yeah....

As for harming art... nope. Mods always mean you yourself had installed them. And the good mods I always talk about but you never ever try them are usually their own games...

So you have two games as examples? Where are the figures pointing out the connection between increased sales being as a result of mods? Where is the data that encompasses 100+ games to show this connection between mods = sales +by X%?

So if I went up to the Mona Lisa and doodled all over it I'd not be vandalising it? If you're going to call videogames art than be ready for there being people who will treat it like art. Why would they give tools to vandalise their work so a couple of bush league kiddies can knock something up, and than be praised more than the creators themselves for their little project? I mean look at this thread itself with people saying modders put devs to shame...what a joke.

Were those jobbers actually any good they wouldn't need to ride the coattails of low/midcarders to push out "their" "art".

Your Mona Lisa analogy is... and I do not want to be mean...shit. No, really. It is bad. Very bad. Use a different one.
A slightly better, but again not good analogy would be literature and fan fiction. However that also is not perfect, as it ignores the fact that authores are usually single independant units whilst game makers are usually not.

And calling things like Black Mesa, R&D and Lost Alpha vandalism, when the original is 100% intact right next to them... is very strange.

As for increase in sales. It just does.

NuclearKangaroo:

- mods DO NOT affect your DLC sales, as Skyrim proved

it does if your DLC is worse than texture mods done in less than a day.

Rozalia1:

So if I went up to the Mona Lisa and doodled all over it I'd not be vandalising it? If you're going to call videogames art than be ready for there being people who will treat it like art. Why would they give tools to vandalise their work so a couple of bush league kiddies can knock something up, and than be praised more than the creators themselves for their little project? I mean look at this thread itself with people saying modders put devs to shame...what a joke.

Were those jobbers actually any good they wouldn't need to ride the coattails of low/midcarders to push out "their" "art".

of course you would not be vandalising. If we are using mona lisa as an example, this link shows you many modders doing something with mona lisa. and its perfectly legal to do so. seriuosly, i didnt knew that "mods ruin games" people even existed anymore. this is an argument from sheer ingnorance.

archiebawled:
People seem to be forgetting that the people at Turtle Rock are gamers, they know about mods, they know the benefits.

The way Turtle Rock has been acting id doubt they were human, let alone gamers.

Charcharo:

Thing is, mods seem to mean MORE sales then LESS sales. See STALKER and Skyrim and Half Life 1/2 as clear examples...
In other words they are doing a mistake if they want more money.

And actually I would not be scorning them if it wasnt for this. Everytime I hear such an article, it means no modding support and probably even a stance against them.
And after the BullShit DICE said ... yeah....

As for harming art... nope. Mods always mean you yourself had installed them. And the good mods I always talk about but you never ever try them are usually their own games...

So you have two games as examples? Where are the figures pointing out the connection between increased sales being as a result of mods? Where is the data that encompasses 100+ games to show this connection between mods = sales +by X%?

So if I went up to the Mona Lisa and doodled all over it I'd not be vandalising it? If you're going to call videogames art than be ready for there being people who will treat it like art. Why would they give tools to vandalise their work so a couple of bush league kiddies can knock something up, and than be praised more than the creators themselves for their little project? I mean look at this thread itself with people saying modders put devs to shame...what a joke.

Were those jobbers actually any good they wouldn't need to ride the coattails of low/midcarders to push out "their" "art".

Use_Imagination_here:

NuclearKangaroo:

Use_Imagination_here:
Skyrim released the mod kit months after the release of the game.

Which is exactly what they're probably planning to do.

I give your reading comprehension a 6/10.

i read that part, the thing is those are very often empty promises, you know, for someone who seems to enjoy calling people out for apparently not reading correctly, you didnt read my previous post where i expressed my concerns with this

if evolve truthly releases mod tools post launch, good, great in fact, im proven wrong and ill go eat crow, is not like im happy if a game isnt moddable, but this kind of speech, ive heard many times before and it all led to nothing, or it was too little, too late

Your post stated that they officially said they're never going to add mods. This is blatantly false. I was pointing this out.

It was especially strange that you included an example of a game with identical circumstances. The devs of Skyrim didn't definitely state that they were going to have mod support for PC. And they did state that it wasn't going to be at launch. I was pointing this out.

So your example of the success of a game due to mods that developed mod support in near identical circumstances as a basis for why its stupid to release a game in those circumstances can be colloquially referred to as "stupid".

my point was a blatant figure of speech, again showing how little hope i have for mod support post launch in this title

i didnt know about the situation with skyrim, i used skyrim in my post not because it had or not mod tools at launch, i mentioned as an example of how important can mod tools be for a game

plus is a reality that even before launch bethesda showed more commitment to skyrim's modding that this half-assed "yeah kinda maybe" response

http://www.gamefront.com/bethesda-hopes-to-have-skyrim-mod-tools-on-launch-day/

does any part in these dev's response show commitment to mod tools?

NuclearKangaroo:

Use_Imagination_here:

NuclearKangaroo:
"we will never add mods, stop asking about it"

i cant believe how devs still do this shit, its insane, after the success skyrim

Skyrim released the mod kit months after the release of the game.

Which is exactly what they're probably planning to do.

I give your reading comprehension a 6/10.

i read that part, the thing is those are very often empty promises, you know, for someone who seems to enjoy calling people out for apparently not reading correctly, you didnt read my previous post where i expressed my concerns with this

if evolve truthly releases mod tools post launch, good, great in fact, im proven wrong and ill go eat crow, is not like im happy if a game isnt moddable, but this kind of speech, ive heard many times before and it all led to nothing, or it was too little, too late

Your post stated that they officially said they're never going to add mods. This is blatantly false. I was pointing this out.

It was especially strange that you included an example of a game with identical circumstances. The devs of Skyrim didn't definitely state that they were going to have mod support for PC. And they did state that it wasn't going to be at launch. I was pointing this out.

So your example of the success of a game due to mods that developed mod support in near identical circumstances as a basis for why its stupid to release a game in those circumstances can be colloquially referred to as "stupid".

Continue reading 47 comments on the forums.
Recommended Games
Mu Online
categories: 3d, fantasy
Dragon Raja
categories: 2d, fantasy