If I remember correctly, the MEIOU&Taxes team were allowed to have a wiki as long as they didn't link to their download on it (since that'd break rule #10) .
And of course, my wikis have been allowed (though they're unrelated to any specific mod).
-
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.
And of course, my wikis have been allowed (though they're unrelated to any specific mod).
Hi thanks for the question,
Wiki is usually about providing information on how to use the mod, that would be fine, I think the deal I made with the mods that wanted wikis was just to not allow discussions.
Since we allow you to post the mod on the steam workshop and those pages themselves allow comments, I do not see the steam group as being all that different, although obviously we would prefer you created your group here.
Web pages that do not allow comments are allowed.
Social media, yes I think it would not be fair to not allow you to use that
As we grow bigger, we are looking at some of these older rules and discussing if we still need them or they can start to be relaxed, at least for those based around User mods.
Without the direct download links I can't get any mods so rule number 3 is stopping me from getting great mods but if that's what u want I will have to deal with it.
Or you could go to the games mod forum where there are links. All you have to do is register the game. Though you never answered the confirmation e--mail when you registered, so you might not be able to access the mod forums until you have done so. If you don't have the confirmation e--mail anymore then change your e--mail to something bogus and change it back to the real one; that wil generate a new confirmation e--mail.
I always thought posting direct download links on the steam workshop page was against the rules but reading a bit of this thread has me confused.
Can someone confirm for me this is not allowed?
Can someone confirm for me this is not allowed?
Last edited:
Would it be okay to embed part of a DLC in a mod, if it doesn't make the DLC practically useful for people without it?
Specifically, I want to embed and modify the headgear and clothes graphics from a portrait pack (Sunset Invasion), in order to fix a bug and add some of the custom graphics from my mod. But none of the other graphics from the DLC (face, eyes, etc) would be included; someone who doesn't own the DLC would just see the headgear, clothes, and no face, so it's not like it'd be giving away the DLC for free.
As far as I know you can use DLC content as long as you make sure those parts of your mod can only be accessed by people owning that DLC; so you need to implement a DLC check.
You can post a link to your thread or forum here and have the direct link here.
I know, but it's against the rules to do that on steam right? (because I can see some people doing that..breaking the rules)
What I'm wondering is, does making it so people who don't own the DLC can't see the faces, only the headgear and clothes, count as doing that?
Alternatively, is there a way to make it so you can't enable a mod without owning the DLC?
No idea.
To the last question try asking it in the mod forum; I know some mods do check DLC in some way, so there has to be modders there who can help you implement it.
The instructions I get from PDS is that they do not allow any assets from one IP to be used in a mod for another IP without taking reasonable steps to ensure the user owns the IP from which the assets are being taken.
So that includes headgear or parts of images/assets ...
So that includes headgear or parts of images/assets ...
I'm currently taking a few months out of employment to develop my portfolio for switching in to a games design role. For the fastest turnaround, I'm working on mods. I'm already familiar with EU3 and HoI3 modding, so EU4 is a logical one to go for. Unfortunately having started down this track, I don't think I can stomach such draconian rules, as someone who has encountered heaps of trouble in the past when work hasn't been appropriately copylefted. I've PM'ed Castellon to express my concerns, but I suspect given the replies in this thread I'll simply have to find another game.
Normally I'd just have never started rather than raising it as an issue; it's not like everytime a modder decides they don't like the rules they're going to kick up a fuss about it. I'm invested only because I've worked on PDS mods in years long past (which, incidentally, totally broke rule 4) and have already done some work on an EU4 mod. I'm confident many modders who are well seasoned will just turn their nose up at creating a mod under these restrictions.
To be clear, it's not as though it's a question of modding or not. It's a question of choosing to mod using a PDS platform or not. The loss of feedback that would result from not being able to use Steam/the forums is such that when you're looking at investing hundreds or potentially even thousands of person-hours in to a project it's sufficient to think: 'I'll probably just put that time in to a project for another game that places a value on modders being able to copyleft their work, both for the benefits to the community and to the modder themselves'.
Unintended but avoidable consequences. C'est la vie.
Last edited:
Regarding rule 4, I would point out that the vast majority of the modding is done and published in Berne signatory countries. In that regard, PDS might want to ask their lawyers about 'automatic copyright'.
Why mods using contents from games of other companies are allowed in steam workshop, such as Medieval 2:Music Mod? It is just a small part of a Eisberg...
Not sure I understand your comment, but it is not our responsibility to enforce other peoples IP or to know if people have permission to use it. We would act on any complaints from an IP holder, to my knowledge we have not received any in this case.
Steam workshop is your place and you should control it. Is it ok for modders to distribute "stolen" materials in your officially supported platform? I can't get it. You don't need to download every mod, some of them are apparently taken from other games and the modders don't mention any kind of permission.
It also breaks not few articles of your mod rule.
I know the history of using steam workshop is quite young for PI, but I wish there will be a good connection between this forum and steam workshop (or other official platforms).
It also breaks not few articles of your mod rule.
I know the history of using steam workshop is quite young for PI, but I wish there will be a good connection between this forum and steam workshop (or other official platforms).
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
i guess your are as responsible on (illegaly) distributed content on workshop like you are about content distributed on your forums.
such music mod breaking IP would have been erazed in the minute here on the forums, like it has already haapened in the past.
Actually not. They're responsible if the owner fills a DMCA claim - and only then.
You seam to assume we are omniscient, thank-you for that, but we do not know who holds copyright on what, or who has permission to use what. How could we possibly.
Do you know who wrote the song and maybe the same person who gave permission to the TW Devs gave permission to the user, or maybe the song is PD, or maybe the user is the original author of the song and the one that licensed it to CA in the first place. I don't know, could you swear to any of those things?
We know what our IP is and seek to protect that, if other IP holders inform us of breaches we would act to assist them, but we cannot act out of assumptions.
Our rules state that one of the above cases must be true, until and unless we receive official word from a copyright holder to the contrary we will give our members the benefit of the doubt that they are not breaking our rules.
Do you know who wrote the song and maybe the same person who gave permission to the TW Devs gave permission to the user, or maybe the song is PD, or maybe the user is the original author of the song and the one that licensed it to CA in the first place. I don't know, could you swear to any of those things?
We know what our IP is and seek to protect that, if other IP holders inform us of breaches we would act to assist them, but we cannot act out of assumptions.
Our rules state that one of the above cases must be true, until and unless we receive official word from a copyright holder to the contrary we will give our members the benefit of the doubt that they are not breaking our rules.