So far i havent seen 1 lawsuit going against any company that has made an M rated game for content that the kid is subjected to. Its just that those parents would be laughed at by the lawyers. By them giving permission to the kid to play the game, they are pretty much saying "yes we know this game has this kind of content and we still would like our child to have and play the game". That is what giving the consent does and every one of those parents that thinks they can get away with it are morons lol

Oh yeah, I don't see modders modding specifically in hopes that they'll get on consoles. I assume there will be only a few that will try it. Most likely only those that have both console and pc versions will even care. I usually end up with both but always start off with the console version.. Takes me about a year before I get it on pc.

And when you buy online, you need to provide a scan of ID... Oh right, you don't.

And you don't need a credit card on the console systems (or Steam, or many other PC stores), since you can buy online cards at Best Buy/Gamestop/etc for cash.

Anyway.... even if games like GTA & God Of War have certain types of content, and FO4 will be rated M, doesn't mean that MS & Sony won't be exerting a reasonably strict level of control over what mod content is "approved" on their systems, if only to keep the so-called "moral guardians" from deciding to raise a stink (as well as stupid parents who don't care enough to pay attention to what they're letting their kids play, but are still really adept at rabble-rousing on Facebook/Twitter/Faux News once they do notice something that offends them).

(As for "well, it's covered by the M rating".... honestly, even just on the Nexus there's stuff that veers well into AO territory. And then there's those other sites, with even looser rules. )

If you are wanting to compare Skyrim owners to the entire world population of the world, then it's 0.328%. You can say that's insignificant, but I still think it's a pretty impressive number.

I'm not sure I buy Bethesda's number of modders as that low a percentage, but I'd be highly surprised if it's over 20%.

GECK for a console is not going to happen. Besides the likely issues with hardware being able to handle it, it's a SURE way for nvde mods to show up on a Xbox ONE and M$ is not going to let that happen so easily.

Hot Chocolate set the precedent. Left over code in San Andreas allowed a modder to put a six mini-game back into the game that caused really bizarre outrage and lawsuits. Game had to be recalled and re-rated from M to AO. So even though the game had an M rating.. people are dumb, and still bought the game for their children and still sued and won even though they were at fault for buying an M rated game for children. Of course it should be all on the parent but that's not the way it's ever really worked.

IF these numbers are true then why is Bethesda not an xbox exclusive company?

Why sell fewer copies when you can sell more? Just 10% of Skyrim sales is still millions.

You'd be shocked to know more and more that this question is likely asked at every PC game company meetings....The answer is that you can get much better marketing eye candy from a PC and that porting from a console developed game to the PC is not all that difficult to do.

Now if your question is just to pish-posh the percentages given, they why doesn't really matter, but no company would economically leave 14% of sales on the table. When it gets closer to 2 or 3%, then the question is a serious one.

The day that happens is the day I'll stop buying games =(

Still plenty of good old ones around, though.

+1

Well i can understand why they won the lawsuits. Because that kind of content was not part of the M rating and was not a part of the actual game even though it was left over code. If content like that makes the rating be higher than previously stated, then they WOULD have the right.

What i am talking about is having the actual game with controlled mods by the devs being of M rating. If the mods and game are of M rating, there shouldnt be a problem. If it makes the rating go up from what it originally was then i can see a problem. But that Hot Chocolate was on the developer since it was left over code that they actually made. If that hot chocolate mod didnt exist, then there would be no case.

I feel like that could easily be solved with some kind of disclaimer. It is seriously disappointing when freedom to modify our own personal game in our own homes is restricted by people who can't handle some virtual violence or gore.

And if there will be a separate mod platform to download from why not just require an age gate to 'offensive' mods.

If you're on PC you can do what you want...Console no...You're under M$/P$ rule and they have the right tbh to censor anything on there systems. It's life my friend....

I'm not getting in too deep on the ratings discussion cause it literally makes my piss boil. There should be no such thing as censorship ratings and I wish for all those despicably politically correct suburban house wives out there that your bleach blonde big hair falls out and you poke yourself in the eyes with your fake fingernails.

Have you ever actually READ and End User License agreement? You know, the wall of text you AGREE to when you install a piece of software?

If you had, you would know that you DO NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE. You purchased a license to RUN the software that the publisher allows you to install In order to AGREE to that license, you have to also agree to ALL the small fine print that the publisher puts in the EULA. You either agree and can use the software or don't and it won't install....simple.

On consoles, it's a bit different, but on a PC (or any computer sold since Microsoft first published MS BASIC) I doubt you have ever actually OWNED any software that you didn't write from scratch (and even then, there are licenses stipulations with library code from the language publisher that likely means you don't really own those parts of the code).

BTW, this little difference between owning the code and owning a license to RUN the code is why Bill Gates is so effin' rich....He convinced IBM to buy BASIC (and eventually MS-DOS) that way and it's been like that with all software ever since.

Which is why I miss the days of buying a disc and playing with no internet connection.

All the legal arguments after this post don't really matter. It doesn't need to be an actual lawsuit, they don't want controversy whether it has an actual legal consequence or not. And it's not just six, it can be anything from a big list.

Hot Coffee (and the fiasco that put Oblivion from T to M) happened because the assets were already there on the disk, and modders only had to enable them. Bethesda aren't (and never have been) liable for assets mod authors put in their game; if a six mod got onto the consoles, Bethesda (and Microsoft, and Sony) will have protections in their EULAs to avoid any damages.

For whatever channels they provide for us to download and install mods, it will probably be a moderation system instead of a vetting process, like the Workshop. You upload a mod, and if it breaks the terms of service then Bethesda brings down a mighty hammer on your ass. But they can't possibly vet every mod that goes through; some will slip the cracks, regardless, and there's a huge different between checking a list of GMST and LList edits and making sure a huge DLC-sized expansion like Falskaar is kosher. Of course, you can't really "hide" anything in the game assets.

The licensing agreement was the same back then, they just had no way of enforcing it

Modding helped build sort of a cult following and excitement around the game and BGS. It gives the company a lot of free publicity and word-of-mouth marketing that helps build their reputation. It's the snowball effect that led to Skyrim having such high sales numbers. If they ever decide to skimp on modding it won't hurt the current game's sales. The games that BGS brings out in the future would be hurt because they would no longer have the same buzz around the studio.