Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

UPDATED 14/06/18 - *** Rules for User Made Mods and Edits of PDS games ***

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
When I first saw this site through links the only reason it took me soooo long to register for a forum account was becuase I do not like the way the site looks, it looks old and unnapealing, and it looks clunky. It also responds slowly when I click links and the registration takes longer than I wanted.

So for me, if you wanted to have me register today, say I never did, you need to get a website graphics team to work on the php or css or whatever sites use these days to look clean and pretty and informative and not clunky. Just my two cents on making the whole "ugh I have to register to this dumb site and have more logins and passwords I might forget now" problem.
 
And I disagree with that. I have seen plenty of sites being either dumbed down or get a horrible layout from 'modernization'. The forum layout is great and intuitive; no need to ruin something that works.
And if you make a tablet version then please don't make it the only version; sites that does that ends up being horrible on a computer.
 
Hi Guys this is not the New forum discussion thread, that will come.
 
R3fr3Sh said:
Does Paradox have any problem with editing their original fonts? I mean adding new letters for e. g. polish version of the game?
Click to expand...
Not 100% sure I fully understand what you mean, but if you are asking if you can put out a localization mod, or a mod that changes the font, as long as you do not distribute the main executable file, I cannot see an issue with it.
 
Castellon said:
Not 100% sure I fully understand what you mean, but if you are asking if you can put out a localization mod, or a mod that changes the font, as long as you do not distribute the main executable file, I cannot see an issue with it.
Click to expand...
He means extending one or more of the fonts in the game, which would necessitate redistributing the relevant font file(s) with his modifications.
 
Last edited:
I have two questions, the first if quite simple, but the second is quite complex to pose:

1) why are you against websites (or blogs, for that matters) that allow comments? And why do you consider that social media, which have a far greater deal of interactivity, would be unfair to rule out, though?

2) what content does count as a DLC IP? Does that includes the moddable content included in the patch, or only those that a non-buyer wluldn't have in his computer, i.e. The zip files in the dlc format?
More precisely, does the code and localisation for events wich are freely distributed with the patch but with a softcoded restriction to a dlc material part od the dlc ip or the main game ip?

I ask because there are several features (e.g. Looting in CK2) that can be scritped for modding content, but in vanilla only appear under DLC-locked religion. As the code line is aviable in the patch, this is usually considered patch material and not dlc material, and thus fair to modify and distribute regardless of the DLC.

BUT if that reasoning holds, then e.g. All the events that are supposed to only appear in-game if you have q DLC can be modded in only by modifyinv the text files provided in the free patch. Does that mean that e.g. The only content of the dlc are graphics and such that are only included in the dlc files? Otherwise, the borders is unclear and demands further clarification, I think.

Also, some DLCs include e.g. .gfx (text) files that can be reverse-engineered to e.g. Mix and match content from different dlcs without actually theoretically distributing the files in the DLC. BUT how can you distinguish wether a txt (or a graphic for that matter! has been so reverse-ingeneered and when has been simply extracted and modified directly from the DLC zip and thus breaking the rule?

Thanks
 
ngppgn said:
I have two questions, the first if quite simple, but the second is quite complex to pose:

1) why are you against websites (or blogs, for that matters) that allow comments? And why do you consider that social media, which have a far greater deal of interactivity, would be unfair to rule out, though?

2) what content does count as a DLC IP? Does that includes the moddable content included in the patch, or only those that a non-buyer wluldn't have in his computer, i.e. The zip files in the dlc format?
More precisely, does the code and localisation for events wich are freely distributed with the patch but with a softcoded restriction to a dlc material part od the dlc ip or the main game ip?

I ask because there are several features (e.g. Looting in CK2) that can be scritped for modding content, but in vanilla only appear under DLC-locked religion. As the code line is aviable in the patch, this is usually considered patch material and not dlc material, and thus fair to modify and distribute regardless of the DLC.

BUT if that reasoning holds, then e.g. All the events that are supposed to only appear in-game if you have q DLC can be modded in only by modifyinv the text files provided in the free patch. Does that mean that e.g. The only content of the dlc are graphics and such that are only included in the dlc files? Otherwise, the borders is unclear and demands further clarification, I think.

Also, some DLCs include e.g. .gfx (text) files that can be reverse-engineered to e.g. Mix and match content from different dlcs without actually theoretically distributing the files in the DLC. BUT how can you distinguish wether a txt (or a graphic for that matter! has been so reverse-ingeneered and when has been simply extracted and modified directly from the DLC zip and thus breaking the rule?

Thanks
Click to expand...

1) More than a dozen years Experience.
2) Public Items in a public patch are available to anyone owning the game, thus become part of that game and IP of that game. So you only need to ensure they have the base game and not the corresponding DLC. Hidden Items not normally available in game that happen to be distributed with the patch for technical or other reasons, are not considered part of the base game rather the DLC that would be needed to view those items in game.

Hope that helps and makes things clear.
 
Are there any IP's that Paradox has freed into the public domain; for example, EU1, or other "old" games?
 
Nickjbor said:
Are there any IP's that Paradox has freed into the public domain; for example, EU1, or other "old" games?
Click to expand...

No, sadly with digital distribution that has mostly become a thing of the past with most companies.
We did open the source code to some of our IP for Modders to have a crack at and develop their own games in conjunction with us. This had mixed success though.
Examples of ones that got released being: For the Glory, Darkest Hour, Arsenal of Democracy ...
 
Castellon said:
1) More than a dozen years Experience.
2) Public Items in a public patch are available to anyone owning the game, thus become part of that game and IP of that game. So you only need to ensure they have the base game and not the corresponding DLC. Hidden Items not normally available in game that happen to be distributed with the patch for technical or other reasons, are not considered part of the base game rather the DLC that would be needed to view those items in game.

Hope that helps and makes things clear.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it doesn't much. The problem is: Does "normally" include modding, and more exactly text editing the files within the patch? What does hidden means here?

Limit example: A modding improvement that is not used in the based game (say, title-scoped variables) are under some interpretation "hidden items that don't normally appear in the game." But kntuitively, modding improvements appear in the patch (e.g. In the patchnotes). Thus, I think some more explanatory criterion should be given to avoid confusions or/and unwanted infractions.
 
Modding = Changing the "Normal" experience so No by definition "normally" does not include Modding or what can be made available by modding.
 
Well, that's my point: Since EVERY possible content that a mod can add is not normally aviable in the vanilla game but is made possible for technical reasons for the patxh, then every content that uses any modding perk introduced by any patch is breaking the rules, isn't it?

I hope this doesn't sound as if I'm doing vain arguing or something. It's just that I think that there is a real issue there with the reach, scope and formulation of the rules
 
Castellon said:
Hidden Items not normally available in game that happen to be distributed with the patch for technical or other reasons, are not considered part of the base game rather the DLC that would be needed to view those items in game.
Click to expand...
To clarify:
Are 'hidden items' just actual content (like events for DLC-only factions/characters) - or also scripting commands only appearing in DLC-only content?
 
shierholzer said:
To clarify:
Are 'hidden items' just actual content (like events for DLC-only factions/characters) - or also scripting commands only appearing in DLC-only content?
Click to expand...

TBH, making the rule apply to scripting commands is pretty much a moot point, as you can freely modify the modded scripted content yourself.

I mean, I sure understand PDS' policy to enforce modders to not 'open' such content in the official release, but they have no possible way of preventing players from doing it themselves on their copies.

In vanilla, it's different, cause you lose Ironman.
 
Guys I am not going to nitpik, you I think are all reasonable people. You know what we intend and what the spirit of the rule is.
The spirit of the rule is That people that do not purchase the DLC, should not have access to anything associated with that DLC you would not normally have if playing an unmodded game without that DLC.
 
Castellon said:
Guys I am not going to nitpik, you I think are all reasonable people. You know what we intend and what the spirit of the rule is.
The spirit of the rule is That people that do not purchase the DLC, should not have access to anything associated with that DLC you would not normally have if playing an unmodded game without that DLC.
Click to expand...

Yes, sure, we get what you mean. I was playing devil's advocate.

Nevertheless, the whole thread was started as an 'official ruleset', and being all legal-y. Is it so much to want the rules to be clear? In its current form they can be interpreted in various ways and that is the definition of a bad rule in my humble opinion.
 
In the past most of these were rules at least informally, however as some people ignored the spirit of them, and then claimed well they are not explicitly stated anywhere ....
Ya, so, we explicitly stated them.

I can tell you I spend way more time talking about these rules than enforcing them. Example in the last year I have only pulled 2 mods from the Steam Workshop and one of them was allowed back after some discussion (discussions he was not willing to have until I showed that I could pull it).
And on the forum I think about the same.

For the most part we rely on you good folks to comply with the spirit of the rules, if you act in good faith and from good intent, no one here is out to get you.
 
If I make a mod and cite the source for the information like this:

Code: 
1837.11.1 = { experimental_railroad = 1 } #First train test run took place. Source: Chad Bryant, "Into an Uncertain Future: Railroads and Vormärz Liberalism in Brno, Vienna, and Prague", 2009, p. 187.

Am I breaching the author's copyright by mentioning their name and the title of their work (and by using the information from their article)? I know for practical purposes this probably doesn't matter, but I am interested in this subject, so I thought I'd ask.
 
Andrelvis said:
If I make a mod and cite the source for the information like this:

Code: 
1837.11.1 = { experimental_railroad = 1 } #First train test run took place. Source: Chad Bryant, "Into an Uncertain Future: Railroads and Vormärz Liberalism in Brno, Vienna, and Prague", 2009, p. 187.

Am I breaching the author's copyright by mentioning their name and the title of their work (and by using the information from their article)? I know for practical purposes this probably doesn't matter, but I am interested in this subject, so I thought I'd ask.
Click to expand...

Citations aren't copyright violations - in fact, they are exactly the opposite - the appropriate way to identify the author who created the original work. That said, in general, facts are not copyrightable (at least in the US, which is the only place I'm semi-competent as a non-lawyer to comment on). Arrangements of facts, yes. But facts in and of themselves, generally, no. But only a copyright lawyer can advise you for sure. Personally, as a non-lawyer, I'd say your conscience would be clean in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back