The really big and complex mods... maybe. Simpler mods? Well, if you've produced something simple, straightforward and reliable that you enjoy, and you think other people might enjoy it too, then why not share? I think there are probably a lot of modders who'll take that attitude, even if their mods won't set the world on fire.

And there may be a lot of people playing Fallout 4 on console who have PCs that can handle the Creation Kit who'd love to share their creations, big or small, with other console gamers.

Time will tell

On the subject of script extenders.

Given how difficult it has been for Bethesda - a relatively well-respected, multi-million dollar corporation - to get mods on consoles, how much more difficult do you think it will be for some random modder to get Microsoft to agree to let him distribute a modified version of Bethesda's executable file to their consoles? The reason script extenders exist is that the existing application does not expose enough to the scripting layer to accomplish the modder's goal. Basically, they're all hacks around the limitations that Bethesda intentionally put in place to limit what mods can do. The idea that Micosoft or Sony will allow that kind of risk on their carefully curated console platforms is without any basis whatsoever. Both companies have a stranglehold on the code that runs on their consoles, which is why Bethesda is having such a tough time getting mods on the console at all. There is absolutely no way they are going to allow modifed game executables to be distributed through official channels.

Now you may be able to do some of the things that applications like SKSE enabled in the vanilla G.E.C.K. this time around - who knows? But you just are never going to be able to install a script extender on the Xbox One or the PS4.

I think having mods on a console will make hackers attack the consoles like they did last Christmas. Microsoft security is not protected as well from hackers either is sony, its like if they really wanted they could shut the whole internet down but why would they? Because it's their playground.

Assuming you are being serious, I again, question your understanding of mods, computers, consoles and the internet in general....

You've been here almost a year and your ONE post is to comment on something we don't actually know anything about yet? hmmm ok. Like you kind of mentioned, the new GECK could have built in means to do what previous script extenders were made to do. OR we could see Beth being more open from the jump as to what code is accessable. Todd did mention that they want us to be able to break the game if we want.

smh

I lol'd, thank you

I have to admit that I'm a bit dubious on console mods. I'm picturing folk going crazy and installing 80 or so mods without any knowledge of things like compatibility or load order (I'm assuming Bethesda's launcher will have to allow setting the load order) and without access to any tools to create compatibility patches resulting in many borked games and tantrums.

Well i'm sure there's a "using mods is not officially supported" clause or something.

Agrees.. Plus not as much memory and stuff on console..

-edit-

I also do not think Sony will agree to this.

Fair enough . It's mostly a matter of perspective and emphasis I was pointing out, a note of (cautious) optimism in contrast to the prevailing air of (sometimes baseless) cynicism and dismissal.

Are you sure of that? Absolutely everything I've read indicated that the script extender team implemented new scripting functionality which Bethesda never implemented. The data structures they were reading and writing were exposed to the scripting layer just fine, it's just that the scripting layer only implemented the functionality that Bethesda's own content creators needed to implement the game they released.

It's important to remember that Bethesda aren't in the business of creating a game engine with general application which is marketed as such. They're simply creating a game, using an in-house engine which they extend and modify as needed for each game. Which is why the game engine (and the scripting is part of that) often has seemingly curious omissions. Not because Bethesda are trying to limit mods. The scripting isn't designed for modding at all, it's designed for and used by Bethesda.

Absolutely agree with that - well, apart from the idea anyone would actually distribute a modified executable. The script extender runs on the mod user's machine and modifies the standard game executable after it's launched. But, yes, nothing that modifies the game executable will be allowed on the consoles, I'm sure.

I'm pretty sure I read a comment by SMK Viper (who developed Papyrus scripting for Skyrim) or from someone else in the know saying that some of the functions implemented by the script extender team were going to be incorporated in Papyrus natively, because Bethesda saw they'd be useful to their own designers. But certainly not all.

When I say that something is not exposed to the scripting layer, I just mean that you cannot interact with that thing using only a script. So we're really saying the same thing in two different ways Because if the SKSE team needed to "implement new scripting functionality" they did something more than write a Papyrus script.

I don't disagree on your second point at all. By "limiting what mods can do" I only meant that not everything in the engine may be read from or written to using Papyrus. The limits of the scripting feature of an engine are carefully plotted - as you indicated - based on the development team's needs, and on the predicted needs of the modding community. Obviously they cannot anticipate all possible mods, so you get those curious ommissions now and then. So again, I think we were saying the same thing in two different ways.

Ditto on the third point. The distinction between hosting the .exe and modifying it in memory, and modifying the .exe before runtime is a distinction without a difference when it comes to Microsoft's and Sony's security concerns.

Hopefully you are correct about this. The more we get in the next iteration of Papyrus the better.

Ah, yes, I see why the number of posts I've made is relevant to my point.

You opened with a non-sequitir about my posting history that seemed like an attempt to discredit my argument, and then proceeded to agree with me. I'm not sure where we go from here. Also, I think by "break the game" Todd was making the point that the carefully constructed game balance could very easily be thrown out the window with certain mods (mini-nuke mini-gun). I find it hard to believe that game crashing bugs as a modding feature is one of their technical design goals.

Ah, fair enough, slight misunderstanding. You see so many... well, cynical edging into paranoid... posts around, I thought you were suggesting Bethesda were deliberately hiding secret scripting functionality away from modders. My mistake

I guess we'll truly have to wait and see. IMO if they planned for modding from the get go, and this isn't a second thought 3/4 of the way through development, they may have already planned a solution to all of this. Do we know if any previous modders were hired by Beth? Is that out of the question? What if the functionality is baked right into the code this time because they want it to be? Again, we won't know anything until we have some kind of leak, get info from Beth with specifics on how the game is coded, or just wait till it comes out to see.

I would imagine that any console mods will be accessed either through XBL or PSN. This is where people get indie and free to play games from already, not sure why mods would be different.

With the regular selling of indie games, it would seem they already have somewhat of a system in place to ensure any mods they allow access to are safe.

I'm not sure about PS, but X Box has the capability to link with PC. it would be nice if this is taken into consideration and Bethesda allows those who own console copies to use the creation kit on their linked PC, and import to console.

Bottom line: script extenders are not possible without modifying the game's executable. MS and Sony will never allow executables that modify other excutables anywhere near their consoles.

edit: And if they do, I'll do something drastic, like eat a hat maybe.

what kinda hat

Hopefully an edible hat.

I'd advise a bacon hat. Liquorice hats keep better, but the flavour leaves something to be desired.

Make it a fedora, don't forget to tip it first.

The way I see it is that I can most certainly play DLC, which is for all intents and purposes, a developer created mod.
They have been trying to get mods on console for some time now- and while it is only an assumption, I would wager some planning has gone into all of this. I cant see MS agreeing to mods on XB1 without a comprehensive plan.
Just because there is a file that does something to another file within a verified mod, doesn't need to mean it's something they would allow console users to write to.

Note: in my last post, I spoke of actually making mods for console on a PC.

If they do wind up doing what you say they won't, though- don't wuss out with the nacho sombrero.

I don't think you understand what I mean. "Mods" like SKSE modify the game's executable in memory while the game is running. No DLC does that. No update from Bethesda does that. If Bethesda needs to make a change to the engine, they modify the game's source code during development, compile the executable, and then release it as a completed product.

Normally DLCs are just additional resources (scripts, meshes, textures, sounds, dialogue, items, etc). Script extenders are not necessary for that kind of stuff - unless the modder wants some drastically different functionality attached to their new resource.

Allowing executable code to modify other executable code opens up a can of godzilla sized worms. On the PC, it's fine because it's more of an open platform, and MS doesn't really assume any of the risk because they're not distributing the mod. The console manufacturers cannot allow developers to [censored] with the memory of other running processes. It's just not practical to police something like that. Not to mention that there's no real need to allow that kind of thing.

I believe so, there was a bunch of hoopla about Steam's new Big Picture mode made especially for controllers and I seem to remember something about PS4 at least working with Steam.

There are also posts on Steam forums with people asking about transferring games to their console STEAM setups and stuff so it does appear to be working right now. Steamworkshop isn't but all the foot work is done it would just be a matter of porting it to the consoles. Someone can correct me if I am wrong as I am just going by forum posts and such.

Some mods do have executables. I use an ENB that has one and you may not remember but several mods were replaced with trojans last year when Nexus was hacked.

Lawyers were the ones that put the kabosh the last time they talked about mods on consoles. The PR and game designers all wanted to allow them but it is in fact the lawyers that have the final say. Has nothing to do with legal or not legal(since obviously there is nothing illegal about modding since its their product) it is all about liability. Also, keep in mind they are separate entities. Todd wasn't to keen on the Minecraft guy being sued by Zenimax but he stated that Bethesda legal was its on entity not under their control.

If Fallout 4 has that same stupid ass save system that Skyrim did where it kept fragments of scripts even from removed mods to keep the game running then that issue will be a HUGE problem as it literally will ruin your savegame.

Admittedly, I am not modder, so thanks for the info.

Though, now I am perplexed on why you brought up SKSE in the first place, when I was merely saying that they (MS/Sony) are likely going to check any mods they decide to let console users have, particularly when you say they aren't necessary. ?

I don't think I ever implied that consoles would be able to run all mods. Software processes aside, the hardware wouldn't allow it.
So, I definitely agree that consoles wont get all mods.

A few points;

According to the Steam website, it is available for PC, Mac and Linux. Steam Machines are a form of console that run on a heavily customised version of Linux, called Steam OS. While they have not seen a commercial release, there have been a number of beta machines made and used by selected members of the public. Maybe this is where the confusion lies? Unless you can run Windows, Mac OS or Linux on Xbox One or PS4, I can't see how anyone can be running Steam on them.

Some mods are distributed with executables included. However, these are a special case, where the modder is providing an installer which manipulates the mod files. Strictly speaking, the installer is not the mod. They're sort of getting out of what Bethesda would, very reasonably, regard as just a mod (which is just an asset archive like a BSA and a mod description file like an ESP). True, it's a nice semantic distinction (some would say splitting hairs ), but Bethesda saying they want all mods to work on console isn't incompatible with not allowing third-party executables. Steam Workshop didn't, until very recently with SKSE, allow third-party executables, but you wouldn't say that the 26,393 mods on there aren't mods. It just depends on your definition of 'mod' - ours or Bethesda's. As Bethesda are talking in terms of the definition of mod which they originally envisiged, and which they have used all along, I'd personally let that point slide.

A company can only be liable to be sued under the law if they have done something unlawful. It may be that there are certain ways of implementing mods that would have to be avoided in order to keep everything within current consumer law, and I agree that Microsoft and Sony may not be willing to spend the money to make sure everything is done lawfully, and so would rather avoid the whole issue. The point is, it is the company bosses who decide if the cost of doing it lawfully is worth the benefits in sales. The lawyers don't tell the company bosses "we won't allow you to do this", they just say "if you do this, or do it this way, you can be sued, but if you do it this way you can't". Then the bosses decide. If they see enough sales to make it worth doing things legally, there's no problem. If I'm wrong about this, then I'd love to hear from an experience practitioner of consumer law explaining why - seriously, I'm no expert and this stuff can be complicated, but I'm happy to learn

Ruining your savegame isn't an issue, as Bethesda have shown with Skyrim. They say not to remove mods and keep playing with the same save. If users ignore the instructions for use, then that's their problem. The same would be true for console. Whoever distributes the mods, or enables them to be used, simply has to tell users what they need to do to avoid problems, and warn them of the consequences if things go wrong. After all, if just using the unmodded game as it's meant to be used can result in a trashed savegame (which occasionally it can, I gather especially on PS3), then using mods after being warned "this can trash your savegame, we guarantee nothing, proceed at your own risk" is entirely the user's problem.

[edit]

But I do accept that it could be bad enough publicity that the console manufacturers would be wary.

There's no point to ask these questions. I will not answer what im doing with my mods to morrowind, i take screenshots and im working on a mod and thats all i can say, i know alot more about the construction set then i did in the past. I will tell you if you play morrowind with mods you be happy the day i release it. Hackers also always attack consoles it was lizardsquad who attacked microsoft and sony last year.

I am really curious just how far this is going to go with console mods. PC players of TES and Fallout have had a lot of experience with modding already, and a lot of us know just how badly you can mess up your savegame if you don't do things carefully. Console player's don't have that experience, and this will be the first game on console that supports heavy modding. If Fallout 4 is anything like Skyrim you could install a massive overhaul mod and then uninstall it and keep playing that same character, causing massive stability issues and a lot of bugs. Will the millions who have never modded before know that's a bad thing to do, or will they get angry that it's Bethesda's fault their saves are busted, causing a whole bundle of bad press?

It's a risky move, and I think modding on consoles is going to catch on after Fallout 4. It's going to be a battleground for this year though, since this is going to be new and uncharted seas filled with krakens for some people.

They've already said when console players install a mod, the game will automatically create a back-up save first, so they have something to go back to if the mod doesn't work out or isn't to their liking.

I always consider a savegame to be committed to a mod once it's installed, unless it's a pretty trivial one. You just don't uninstall a substantial mod and keep playing that save, you go back to an earlier save before the mod was installed.