I can't really tell what's changed in 4 and 7.
Would it be possible to post the sections as they used to be so that they can be compared?
- 6
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
Would it be possible to post the sections as they used to be so that they can be compared?
I have mentioned before that ModDB pages were fine as long as you could not download it directly from there. The same still appies.
That is the correct Your site cannot host the files or link to them directly.
- 2
You mean including only the texture, so that it'll only function if they have the 3D model from the DLC itself?
I think that probably falls within "ensuring they can only use it if they have the game/DLC", so you're probably in the clear. I'd wait for Castellon or similar to respond if you wanted to be completely safe though.
There is probably no 100% way to be sure, All we want is that you take reasonable steps, I think your proposal would do that.
- 1
Well since the policy handed down from PDS has always been a firm NO, you can just assume that is the answer, If you think you have some thing that deserves a special Exemption, you can PM me the details, but I am likely to give the same answer.
There is a difference between PI rules, and rules of individual studios like PDS or Colossal Order, Obsidian ...
PI Rules cover all games published by us and the rules of individual studios cover the games they make.
PI Rules cover all games published by us and the rules of individual studios cover the games they make.
Not sure what an AAR has to do with user mods, AAR is a work of fiction, AAR's have their own set of rules, I refer you to the those posted in the main AAR forum.
You are responsible for what you do, not what someone else may do.
As long as your mod does not unlock content that they do not have the DLC for you are good.
As long as your mod does not unlock content that they do not have the DLC for you are good.
- Jul 1, 2015
- 3.709
- 3.516
You are indeed allowed to do this as long as you are not charging for the mod itself. In short, if the mod is free for everyone, regardless of them being Patrons or not, then yes that's fine.
I think some of the reason why large mods often have no Patreon is that it can be quite difficult to work out a way to distribute the money without someone being upset that they're getting too small a share.
So unless a mod team has some expenses that are clearly shared (E.G., hosting, events, and such), then it is not necessarily worth the risk of fracturing the team.
It's a lot simpler with a small team or a single-person team to work out something all contributors will be happy with.
- Jul 1, 2015
- 3.709
- 3.516
That would not be allowed as they are then selling their mod. As per the policy:what about modders who either offer their service or a potential type of mod and then don't deliver ?
Pesky question that, i admit.
"Any use of the mod tools, and creation and publication of mods, is for strictly non-commercial purposes only, and you may not require any fees but may receive voluntary donations for your creation, publication and/or use of mods"
- Jul 1, 2015
- 3.709
- 3.516
Hm that is a bit of a borderline case indeed as it all depends on what the exclusive reward is. Can you PM me name of the mod? If the reward is "get your face in the mod" then that's fine, but if patreons get a different version then that would effectively be them selling a "better" mod for those who donate.
- Jul 1, 2015
- 3.709
- 3.516
Agreed, that's fine. The issue we have is as follows:
Person A doesn't support via Patreon > gets version X of the mod
Person B does support via Patreon > gets version Z of the mod
In this case the mod is effectively being sold as those who contribute gets more "advanced" mod.
^That, mods are free to use the bloodline system as long as they are making new ones with their own assets same as with societies and offmap powers, your Blood of Talos for example would be perfectly fine to make
Hi - I took a quick glance at the mod you linked and I will add a small comment with my thoughts on if this mod breaks rule 7.
This is as you are yourself mentioning a bit of a grey area but we were discussing it a bit internally and did a couple of quick tests on the mod. I understand our current stance as it's okay to create your own landless gameplay loop by adding your own content and mechanics for it. However we do see a problem if it piggy-backs on any of the Roads to Power dlc content (including but not limited to existing adventurer contracts, camp estate, visit settlement and other adventurer decisions). So you would need to make sure that your version of landless gameplay doesn't accidentally expose bulks of content that was only intended for the dlc.
As for the linked mod it's probably in the clear for today's version (I can't speak for future versions and also I would allow forum mods to override my statement here) due to the laamp conversion only getting the character in a feudal empty landless state in case the player doesn't own the Roads to Power dlc.
I'll reserve myself to say this is also not a final statement by us on the dev team since it's not an easy question to fully answer but I hope the provided guidelines are at least helpful for your development.
- 3
- 1