[b473a]

At $10/mo for access even if he's not doing it for profit he's absolutely making bank. Verge in 2022 estimated about $20,000 a month [1].

CDPR has an explicit policy allowing free mods with a tip jar, but not mods that are pay-only. Whether or not you agree with that policy it's CDPR's right to make that decision, and you can't complain when they enforce it.

1: https://www.theverge.com/23190201/luke-ross-vr-real-mod-gta-...

[somenameforme]

How is it their right to make that decision?

This is taking the whole 'you don't actually own this game' to a whole new level when trying to dictate what mods you can use with it. The digital world needs a major reboot in terms of consumer rights, and this should happen sooner rather than later as companies are increasingly trying to take this into the real world by attaching software to hardware and then seeking to gain both rent and control due to nonexistent state of consumer rights associated with software.

[marak830]

I agree, that do not(should not) have a leg to stand on here.

They might not like the fact, but the dev is selling his software, not theirs. It would be akin to MS sending a take down request to software running on windows.

I wonder how much "strength" the tos really has in this case.

[klez]

But they're not going after people who use the mod. They're going after someone who's profiting off of their IP. Someone else said upthread that CDPR doesn't go after people who make free mods (or donationware) so it's clear they don't have a problem with mods per se.

I'm not saying I agree with their stance, but we're talking about different matters entirely.

[xinayder]

> How is it their right to make that decision?

It's their game, it's written in the EULA, which everyone accepts blindly without reading. You have accepted the EULA before playing the game.

This is the same as the Steam Subscriber Agreement saying you CANNOT make paid mods using Valve's IP unless given permission to do so.

There's nothing wrong with CDPR going after someone who thought they'd get away by making an important mod paid-only. It's a totally different story if the $10 fee was optional.

[NL807]

CDPR's policy and the law are orthogonal things. They would have to demonstrate that the mod and its business model violates some kind of law.

[wjdp]

Question is, as long as he's not using their assets, what leg have they to stand on and enforce this? He's selling his software, not infringing on theirs.

On the money, had not spotted how much he was making from this. Given he's been at this for several years and the quality of the product I'm quite happy he's been able to devote the time to this.

[Wowfunhappy]

It shouldn't be CDPR's right to make this decision. A mod is just software that runs on top of other software. Microsoft doesn't get to dictate what I do with Windows. Apple does try to dictate what I do with my iPhone, but even then, if I manage to jailbreak my phone there's nothing they can do about it.