this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2026
200 points (97.2% liked)
PC Gaming
13275 readers
790 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand this at all.
rockstar did the same thing to the VR mods that were made for GTA games.
the guys are developing mods that are going to make me want to purchase and play the game. why is that a problem?
I don't understand intellectual property
You don't understand because you didn't read the article
In this case it's cause the modder is charging money for the mod, I think CD Project Red even offered to allow it to exist if he stopped charging before this, so I would argue this is on the modder
I don't understand what difference it makes to CDPR. if the guy makes a few bucks developing mods for the game, then he can spend more of his time making mods for the game. right? in what way is it harming CDPR
He always had the option of using a donate option instead of locking it behind a paywall. CDPR tried getting him to go that route and he basically told them to pound sand so here we are.
Property rights get all sorts of goofy when money is involved. If homey had released the mod for free and just had a patreon or whatev on the side, no one would care, but because he was charging for it, CDPR is obigated to vigorously defend their copyright.
There's a legal aspect where if you don't defend your intellectual property you may lose it.
You also don't want to set a precedent because if you let some rando do it, why not let a company do it? Why not let Google do it?
Modding implies toying with someone's IP, and the basic premise is that you can't paywall the resulting product. There's a lot of leeway and you can ask for donations, offer private beta to your patrons etc... it can definitely be cash-flow positive but a straight up paywall is a violation of the social contract that governs the modding scene.
Another day, another instance of someone confusing copyright with trademarks.
Not exactly, they made him remove the RDR 2 vr mod. the GTA is still up on github.
this is a terms of service issue, but they're using dmca (copyright) to enforce.
he technically has a case for selling, but defending it would be too expensive. LR also isn't socially adept so he's self-sabatoged himself too.
I'm asking from a place of curiosity, not a place of judgement. Have you ever created anything? A piece of art, poem or prose, a film, a program, etc?
In sim racing, Assetto Corsa has tons of paid mods, and simultaneously its developer is one of very few profitable companies. How come Kunos aren't bankrupt from paid mods existing?
What does that have anything to do with my comment?
I am an artist who is VERY anti-IP law. The system as it exists is evil and does far more harm than good. IP is not some holy grail that deserves protection when it can be so easily abused. I would rather have no IP law than the current system, but I'll settle for reforms.
Makes me think of all the day care places with Disney characters painted outside the walls…
Evil is a really strong word that I'm not sure I can get behind here.
It's part of an overall system that protects the Haves from the Have-Nots. I consider it evil.
yes
Do you mind sharing what it was/is?
I have no idea what your question is getting at. I am a published artist but I pay my bills with unrelated W-2 work
I said from the get go that I was asking from a place of curiosity not judgement. I wasn't "getting at" anything. It interests me to know what your stance is and how it might be informed. Congrats on being published, that's pretty cool.
if I could sustain myself with art by charging a few bucks like the mod developer in this article is doing, then I would
I think that's probably most artists' dream!
Copyright makes no sense. As long as there is a correct citation, it's kosher as far as I'm concerned.
"This song was originally created by @turdnugget" should be the point of copyright and not the current rent seeking behaviour of the ruling class.
So, what if I wrote a book and got it published, but it didn't sell well. Some big company copies it, puts a lot of effort in promoting it and it becomes a bestseller. I don't get any of the money for it, but they cite me as the original author. How is that fair?
You just described academic publishing.
So how is that fair then?
I will extend the same question to you.
Plenty of music, still think copyright is stupid.
Attribution, 100%, copyright itself is stupid.
Now I extend the same question to you.
I mostly write but have wanted to make a game for a while.
Just need to find someone to code?
No, I'd like to do that myself. Mostly need the time and sufficient motivation. Most of my time is eaten up GMing multiple ttrpgs a week right now.