It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionGet your copy of the Daggerfall Unity - GOG Cut(242 posts)(242 posts)
(242 posts)
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
17
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 15, 2022
Play a reimagined version of the all-time RPG classic from The Elder Scrolls series. Daggerfall Unity – GOG Cut brings this amazing experience to modern gamers. It has been made possible, thanks to the efforts of the GamerZakh, a gaming content creator with a love for classics.

The GOG Cut of Daggerfall Unity doesn’t require any special actions on your behalf. All you have to do is download the game and simply launch it. Thanks to settings and mods that were selected by GamerZakh you can explore the rich world of Daggerfall with enhanced visuals and gameplay.
Posted June 16, 2022
avatar
magicono: You don't know the context entirely, so you don't know how my stance is on it and why. But either way, I'd like my mod removed from this as they did not have enough respect for me to even ask if they could host it on their site directly.
avatar
Gudadantza: So you consider it wasn't and oversight? something personal or what? Because honestly I do not see the point of mail to someone and not to others.

Interesting the world of mods
No sure what you are implying here, I literally don't know anyone at GoG or this GamerZahk person. I don't think it was intentional, but that does not change my stance that I don't want my mod/mods distributed in this way. Especially after showing lack of respect by not even bothering to contact me and others before releasing this pre-pack anyway.
Posted June 16, 2022
avatar
TurdFerguson87: Nope. You should re-read it.
avatar
ChuckBeaver: Actually read what I wrote. Last time I reply on this before I take it as trolling. Have a nice day.
I'm not trolling. You're speaking against the modders' intellectual property rights. They made the mods, not anyone at GOG. Modders have not been giving permission for distribution. They have given permission for users' personal use.
Post edited June 16, 2022 by TurdFerguson87
Posted June 17, 2022
I remember a story about a guy who drew a picture of some crazy chicken and one local fast food owner used it as a storefront logo. The guy accused the fast food owner in using his work as an advertisement. The fast food owner proposed some money compensation to "ease the bad situation". And when a news channel asked the guy why he denied the payment from the fast food owner, he answered: "I hate fast food!"

"Free chickens! Would you like to buy some French fries to it?"
Attachments:
gogly-gog.jpg (49 Kb)
Posted June 17, 2022
low rated
avatar
Gudadantza: So you consider it wasn't and oversight? something personal or what? Because honestly I do not see the point of mail to someone and not to others.

Interesting the world of mods
avatar
magicono: No sure what you are implying here, I literally don't know anyone at GoG or this GamerZahk person. I don't think it was intentional, but that does not change my stance that I don't want my mod/mods distributed in this way. Especially after showing lack of respect by not even bothering to contact me and others before releasing this pre-pack anyway.
You think it wasn't intentional but specially because you weren't contacted you want your mod out of the pack. Well it is not specially reasonable to me sorry.

But obviously If you do not want your mod in the pack for any conceptual reason you have it IS perfectly legit, of course. As I said before you could try to contact GOG to retire your mod from the pack. It could be a matter of good faith the act of retiring it, like is a matter of good faith let a free mod be included in a free bundled pack.

The visiblity of Daggefall Unity and their modding potential should be boosted exponentially

Greetings
Post edited June 17, 2022 by Gudadantza
Posted June 17, 2022
Can you blame the mod makers for wanting a better quality control over their creations while some digital store treat such creations as its own store product (even if it's being advertised as a free stuff)?
Posted June 17, 2022
avatar
Gudadantza: Which mod is that? do you have it availanle in the Nexus? I must understand that you are magicono43 there?

EDIT: Rest Warning if Unwell Maybe?
avatar
magicono: Yep, it's "Rest Warning If Unwell" mod, one of my smaller ones, but at this point out of principle I don't want it to be associated with this GOG Cut in anyway.
I looked at Rest Warning if Unwell, and I see that it uses the MIT license. That's a very permissive license that specifically allows redistribution and selling.
How do permissions work in the Mods world to restrict the permissible usage beyond the license?
Posted June 17, 2022
avatar
magicono: No sure what you are implying here, I literally don't know anyone at GoG or this GamerZahk person. I don't think it was intentional, but that does not change my stance that I don't want my mod/mods distributed in this way. Especially after showing lack of respect by not even bothering to contact me and others before releasing this pre-pack anyway.
avatar
Gudadantza: You think it wasn't intentional but specially because you weren't contacted you want your mod out of the pack. Well it is not specially reasonable to me sorry.

But obviously If you do not want your mod in the pack for any conceptual reason you have it IS perfectly legit, of course. As I said before you could try to contact GOG to retire your mod from the pack. It could be a matter of good faith the act of retiring it, like is a matter of good faith let a free mod be included in a free bundled pack.

The visiblity of Daggefall Unity and their modding potential should be boosted exponentially

Greetings
Do you work for GoG or something, because the passive aggressive replies and attempt at guilt-tripping sounds exactly like the "apology" XJDHDR got yesterday.

Also I can't find any email to contact involving a general inquiry, and apparently almost everyone that was contacted was done so through the Nexus mods messages (which I have checked and nothing.)

Daggerfall Unity gets visibility no matter what, and so does GoG I might add, having my little mod out of that equation will change nothing and that's my desire as the creator of it to be the case.

avatar
magicono: Yep, it's "Rest Warning If Unwell" mod, one of my smaller ones, but at this point out of principle I don't want it to be associated with this GOG Cut in anyway.
avatar
frosty_shake: I looked at Rest Warning if Unwell, and I see that it uses the MIT license. That's a very permissive license that specifically allows redistribution and selling.
How do permissions work in the Mods world to restrict the permissible usage beyond the license?
"Give permission for users to upload my files on other sites? Answer: No"

As far as I can see this pre-pack has upload my file onto another site, which of the two options I selected no, this is the case for all of my mods currently.
Post edited June 17, 2022 by magicono
Posted June 17, 2022
low rated
Bottom line is as I already explained. Kick, scream and throw a tantrum. The laws are not going to matter even under the assumption they apply at all. The end result would be paying money for a take down that ends after about a year or longer and it changes nothing. Arguing here wont make gog care. They dont even respond to paying customers. Why would anything talked about involving free content matter to them , when you take this fact into consideration?(rhetorical question)

End of subject.
Posted June 17, 2022
low rated
avatar
Gudadantza: You think it wasn't intentional but specially because you weren't contacted you want your mod out of the pack. Well it is not specially reasonable to me sorry.

But obviously If you do not want your mod in the pack for any conceptual reason you have it IS perfectly legit, of course. As I said before you could try to contact GOG to retire your mod from the pack. It could be a matter of good faith the act of retiring it, like is a matter of good faith let a free mod be included in a free bundled pack.

The visiblity of Daggefall Unity and their modding potential should be boosted exponentially

Greetings
avatar
magicono: Do you work for GoG or something, because the passive aggressive replies and attempt at guilt-tripping sounds exactly like the "apology" XJDHDR got yesterday.

Also I can't find any email to contact involving a general inquiry, and apparently almost everyone that was contacted was done so through the Nexus mods messages (which I have checked and nothing.)

Daggerfall Unity gets visibility no matter what, and so does GoG I might add, having my little mod out of that equation will change nothing and that's my desire as the creator of it to be the case.

avatar
frosty_shake: I looked at Rest Warning if Unwell, and I see that it uses the MIT license. That's a very permissive license that specifically allows redistribution and selling.
How do permissions work in the Mods world to restrict the permissible usage beyond the license?
avatar
magicono: "Give permission for users to upload my files on other sites? Answer: No"

As far as I can see this pre-pack has upload my file onto another site, which of the two options I selected no, this is the case for all of my mods currently.
I do not know frosty_shake, but I feel confident what frosty_shake is trying to communicate is that your MIT license seems to pretty much allows anyone to do anything with your mod that they wish -- commercial or otherwise -- as long as they credit you. If tighter legal control of your mod's usage was a priority, you probably should have used a hardier license that gave you more control of your creation upon publishing. Granted, you may not have known this... but...

From tl;drLegal:

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

With all of that said, it's a difficult situation. I think a lot of people are learning about licenses ATM.

May GOG bend to modders' demands to remove mods? Maybe... and that may be the right thing. I do not know. But at the moment, from a layman's perspective (not a lawyer... not giving legal advice), I'd make certain GOG has all of your information correct and credits correct regarding your specific mod. Your MIT license does stipulate credit.
Posted June 17, 2022
A MIT License is one of the most permisive licenses it lets the user "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software"

It is basically the step before the proper no restriction "Public Domain" License

But I guess that things do not work so literally in a friendly mod community. Because If I am not wrong one of the few conditions in the license is that "All publicity of the software must be notified to the Authors" Notified, not permission. But I guess that it is a non written rule ask for permission. Politeness, etc.
Post edited June 17, 2022 by Gudadantza
Posted June 17, 2022
avatar
BrianSim: [..]This whole situation is probably "communication incompetence" rather than malice, but the way this was launched was poorly thought out. (GOG are even listing it with the Developer = GOG tag in the "Game details" section, which isn't true or cool to do at all). Here's some complaints from several of the other modders from their own forum:
[..]
I have no words, Gog messing up as usual..
This was supposed to be a good thing, but they managed to ruin it..

P.s: btw, I think the Gog dev\pub thing is just because they didn't know what to add in those mandatory fields, so they chose a default value (Gog)
Post edited June 17, 2022 by phaolo
Posted June 17, 2022
So I finally was contacted by somebody from GoG. But this was only after I directly contacted GamerZahk from some posts on Reddit. I requested my mod/mods be removed, so will see what happens. Safe to say the conduct was unnecessarily rushed for this GoG Cut.
Posted June 17, 2022
avatar
phaolo: P.s: btw, I think the Gog dev\pub thing is just because they didn't know what to add in those mandatory fields, so they chose a default value (Gog)
Sure seems to have successfully confused at least one gaming news outlet:
"Elder Scrolls Daggerfall Gloriously Remade In Unity By GOG, Go Get It Free For PC"
(https://hothardware.com/news/daggerfall-unity-gog-cut)

P.S. The default value, as we all know, is not "GOG". It is "TEST DEVELOPER".
Post edited June 17, 2022 by mrkgnao
Posted June 17, 2022
low rated
Respect!
Thanks for your generosity sharing your talent to the gamers and please pass the message to the rest of the modders if possible.

About contacting gog:
Have you tried to PM with Staff people?
If you are new to that,
gog.com/forum/general/forum_faqs_new_to_the_forum_click_here/post1
(Section "What is a PM?")

About who users are staff?
This thread is to "catch em all"
gog.com/forum/general/quest_for_the_missing_blues

You and the rest of the modders may take the opportunity
to ask to give your accounts the "Developer" badge
(orange text, example)
gog.com/forum/stasis_series/list_of_save_games_general_troubleshooting/post3


avatar
Gudadantza: Because you didn't received the email? All is pointing to an oversight, an error.

Well who knows, maybe they hate you :D. Just joking, sorry ;)
avatar
magicono: You don't know the context entirely, so you don't know how my stance is on it and why. But either way, I'd like my mod removed from this as they did not have enough respect for me to even ask if they could host it on their site directly.

If those on here can't understand why somebody might not like having their name and work slapped into something they don't consider up to their personal standard of quality, than they have not created anything they cared about before and take pride in. No matter how small the mod in question was I put my effort to create it, bug-test it and upload it for users in the community to use in their game.

I did not however give a large game publishing website permission to slap my work on this pre-pack, incompatible mods and all, and call it a day.
------------

avatar
phaolo: P.s: btw, I think the Gog dev\pub thing is just because they didn't know what to add in those mandatory fields, so they chose a default value (Gog)
avatar
mrkgnao: Sure seems to have successfully confused at least one gaming news outlet:
"Elder Scrolls Daggerfall Gloriously Remade In Unity By GOG, Go Get It Free For PC"
(https://hothardware.com/news/daggerfall-unity-gog-cut)

P.S. The default value, as we all know, is not "GOG". It is "TEST DEVELOPER".
I wonder, if gog has the ability to disable some fields from the Game details section like:
-Tags
-Release date
-Rating

"Company" could also be disabled?

Or maybe: Redirect the "Company" hyperlink to the modders website?
Something like happens with GWENT "Forum discussion" pointing to
gog.com/forum/gwent_the_witcher_card_game
but redirected to
forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?forums/gwent.23/
Or the "Forum discussion" of "Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun Demo"
pointing to
gog.com/forum/general

Seems alternatives exists to give better credits to the modders...
Posted June 17, 2022
avatar
tag+: I wonder, if gog has the ability to disable some fields from the Game details section like:
-Tags
-Release date
-Rating

"Company" could also be disabled?

Or maybe: Redirect the "Company" hyperlink to the modders website?
Something like happens with GWENT "Forum discussion" pointing to
gog.com/forum/gwent_the_witcher_card_game
but redirected to
forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?forums/gwent.23/
Or the "Forum discussion" of "Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun Demo"
pointing to
gog.com/forum/general

Seems alternatives exists to give better credits to the modders...
From my MaGog days, I don't remember any game with no developer/publisher field, so it might be difficult to disable, but the field is simply a concatenation of two strings. I remember at least one game that had four individual developers listed. I am sure they could make the developer string empty (i.e. ""), or have something like "See list of modders in the game description".
Post edited June 17, 2022 by mrkgnao
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
17
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionGet your copy of the Daggerfall Unity - GOG Cut(242 posts)(242 posts)
(242 posts)