Exoanthrope: I suppose it was just the straw that broke the camels back, as they say.
Fever_Discordia: I haven't paid much attention but financially incentiveising talented people to give up their free time to create new content and make a bit of money from their hobby doesn't sound like THAT much of a bad thing - it's like an angry mod back-lashing against Etsy or something!
Or an I missing something?
Mostly the fact that mods belonged "traditionally" and "culturally" to a zone of gratuitous passionate amateur hobby. So it clashes with the representations attached to it, both on the "
i thought they were just doing it in a sharing mentality, why does everything need to enter the monetized mindset" (maker) level and on the
"i thought i could just grab mods for free forever" (user) level. It's a change of mentality, can be seen as a shift of values in a specific community (from open source-ish to greed-ish).
And also the fact that steam itself gets a huge share of the price (75% or so).
And also the fact that paying for stuff that are as fragile (compatibility and support-wise) as mods may lead to many problems.
Plus practical little issues (people stealing free mods and selling them as theirs, people fearing that profit may put an end to the relative forgiveness of copyright holders for many franchise-related mods, etc).
So, yeah, many many different issues with it, some central and some adjustable, that balance the "allow mods to be rewarded in money" argument. I'm not at all into mods (I always play pure vanilla), so I don't see it as a big deal, but I suppose it may mean a lot for those who are used to the mods scene and its open sharing subculture.
(But there's a trillion open threads on these debates already, so, let's maybe not derail this one further on that...)