Sorry for the wall of text guys, TLDR just look at the bold text below.

This poll was very interesting. But its results, and many of the posts, show also why it cannot be up to the gamers to decide or vote on such an issue.

The gamers will essentially adapt according to their tastes and what they want to pay for.

But only modders know exactly the kind of toxicity it is "to work for free on a game expansion".

Even among modders, we can assume many are "mini-mod modders" who cannot really understand why supporting mods with money could be important.

I am not here speaking about the many mini-mods who do a little stuff and can be created overnight.

These are actually not blocked currently by the free model, and they will continue to exist in a free model or in a paid model; so we can, and we should, completely disregard these in this debate.

I am talking about all these "major expansion mods", which essentially started to appear in the forum-era of mods and started to disappear in the "workshop era" of mods, or to be less apparent and with less community, for no 'obvious' reason.

There has been many games in the four last years with extensive creation tools, where one can deliver a good total conversion over three months work. Yet the number of good mods released that way, and stable, can usually be counted on a single hand for a game

There are not "more total conversions" than 8 years before, but actually less, whereas the number of nicely moddable games have largely expanded. Take Civilization IV and its "Fall from Heaven 2" mod; the later Civilization titles took much more time before having a similar expansion (and actually did not, AFAIK, thuogh one can build a compilation of smaller mods). Take Medieval Total War and it's Lord of the Rings mod; later total war titles took long before having such mods; whereas Total Warhammer I and II are very moddable, it took time before having some total conversions, and they don't take it as far. Also, they have less community than the usual minimod, so a much smaller gain and traction for the modders.

Take Grim Dawn; it's heavily moddable, it's great, but it's large mods were almost all dropped with the expansion and are not followed by many people.

The younger programmers are still making minimods, or larger mods for some ; but every two months or six months a new game is released which attract them and the previous mod is abandoned. The good programmers have aged a bit and have understood they can't continue working for months for free, they want to commit to a game but they can no longer. The fact there are more moddable games is actually taking people away from their projects to move there.

And it's normal, since they make it for fun, they have more fun creating content on the latest cool game with the latest cool tools; and they have more chances at building a community there when the game has just been released. Steamcharts shows when a community drops. When it's too late, it's too late. People continue working on their mod as long as they feel they gain "something" from it: fun (but it can be found on another released game); community (but as playerbase drops, it drops too) and... nothing else. Hiring potential is weak, meaning a few people get noticed and hired, one or two per game. Some modders are hired, but trust me if they would have dedicated the same time making their own game as a programmer, they would not even have been looking for a job.

You have better chances getting hired as community manager after replying to every post that comes out for three months. It's less efforts, it's easier and it works (some hired at every game too).

Programmers themselves, they are the guys who have things which can "bug", "crash", who must follow every game expansion and contiune working on their mod, for essentially no money and a small community. And as we can guess, they don't; most mods are abandoned after a year.

Graphic artists can work on any project they want and build a portfolio. Programmers need a long commitment (and to iron out all possible bugs) to build a programmer portfolio ; game designers need to be programmer too and an even longer commitment to balance things out, and build a game designer portfolio. So yes, it will help them too if we switch to a money based model.

There is much gain to have with a money-based model; it essentialy should inspire modders to make teams or at least to pay new arts for creative content (to avoid copyright problems), and release larger contents with longer support, and to commit again after each expansion. And, if you take the publisher's viewpoint, it rewards them a lot for making their game moddable; essentially bringing them sales for tens of user-made "expansions". If we follow the Valve version, 75 percent of sales are for the publisher, which makes it interesting for them too.

For the publisher and developer, having paid mods is a very positive decision, with 100% gains. Every moddable game will bring new user-made expansions. But it's much better and less risky if it's handled by Steam, that way the publisher does not take community and perception risks.

For the modder, it's a very positive decision, with gains and tradeoffs in commitment and creative content. Essentially speaking, modders should be more involved creatively.

For the players, it makes more expansions to enjoy and make these expansion more complete and more stable.

But players have decisions to take when purchasing a mod; that's the only con.

Also, for all the reasons you have mentioned above, it's important to have some sort of rules / convention about mods and a way to report fake mods, that will restrict the copycats and increase the creativity. I am all for supporting major expansions.

The current model works for graphic artists wanting to build a portfolio, but does not work for programmers.

Mods are always dropped, programmers have no incentive to continue, and it's toxic. Yeah, some programmer-modders will get noticed, but programmer-modders can actually develop their own games and develop a more compatible portfolio to get noticed that way, just by developing their own game.

I have been down that route many times, dedicating a few months into a total conversion, making sure it works, but being unable to support it later. Now I can't stand the toxicity of the free mod model. I still work on a mod from time to time, to reward the developer for providing such tools, and always end up as the top three mods in the works at release; but have to drop it after three months; exhausted, in debt, and punished for my previous involvement.

For that reason, I now work on making my own games, and I am actually sad of not being able to continue making total conversion mods. Also, sorry for the bad english, I am not a native speaker... ;)

PokeCrysis > You sound like you didn't read the original post. He played Skyrim, I don't see why you mentioned DOTA 2, and what he mentioned as reference are nowhere close to FF3 or Mario RPG.

Skyrim and Dark Souls are the top notch of the most modern (and free-world games for Skyrim, haven't played Dark Souls myself), so once you provide them as references, I would say you can only find games with slightly less freedom and quality. Skyrim expansions also do not address what the base game provides.

All the titles that come to my mind are:

"Dragon Age I" is a really quality game but its also a party game, which your previous experiences are not. So it might not fit, you have to weight the "party game" aspect.

"Dragon Age II" has some less freedom of play but is still epic and quite artistic. So... it also might not fit.

"Fallout 3" has been a real disappointment to me regarding freedom of play; I would say it does not compare to Oblivion or Skyrim, as the world sounds much smaller and the ways to "exploit" it are more numerous and more easily found. It still has a very nice start, though.

"Witcher I" and "Witcher II" come to my mind as games with choices, a whole adventure, epic story and mysterious, adult dark touch. But you are bound to play one character, even if you may make it evolve in a few ways so the lack of character creation might bother you. I feel that the Witcher series detracts from your previous experiences; they stand as the most adult and brainy and deep experience to me when compared with the other titles, but that cannot set them as favorites, since they are not Skyrim-like.

What does that leave you with?

The whole Mass Effect series, while they do not entirely provide a "different playthroughs" nice experience, still provide an adventure with large content and some freedom.

I am actually looking for references like Skyrim-like games.

So I only described what has been proposed so far, for you to have more clues about what to expect.

While waiting for a suggestion from someone, I would advise to play "onetime experience" awesome RPGs, like Mass Effect, while waiting for more "sevral playthrough full and free RPGs" like Skyrim to have real next episodes. Dragon Age I also sounds as a not risky experience, since it shall not cost much nowadays while providing nice hours of RPG time.

It does fit with the "RPG newbie" feeling since you are pretty much guided in Mass Effect or DA1, but still have some freedom.

But you have to understand that these shall then be played while waiting for sequels like Skyrim or Dark Souls :)