is allowed under the UE4 EULA.
Either you can sell their mods with their permission (and you pay the 5% royalty due on your revenue), or you can allow them to sell their mods directly under the UE4 EULA governing their use of Epic’s code/tools (which requires them to pay the 5% royalty).
Does that make sense? We’re really excited about the prospect of moddable UE4 games and want to make scenario as practical as possible.
Well, it would be nice if you would address some of the concerns that people mentioned earlier
It is particular painful that the editor can’t be made accessible. Thinking back to UE3, UT2004 times, that was the mod tool no. 1. and made it very easy to start.
If users can mod our game only with source code access + epic license + editor… I think I would need to recreate a map editor… meaning loads of work and probably never as powerful as the actual editor…
I’m understand correctly, that you don’t want to give modders full access to your game files , but you want to give them full access to UE4 editor completely free?
I want to enable them to make new maps for which you need the editor. Not necessarily full access though. They don’t need any source code level access at all. Not sure how that works together with blue prints.
Just curious -
Would it be allowed to redistribute our asset and blueprint files for modding under a open source license or custom license?
Further more - Would Unreal Engine 4 be able to load modified versions of these files at run time or at start up?
While doesn’t alleviate the requirement that access to the UE4 tools requires a subscription, you’re free to: maintain a separate fork of UE4 for your game, not release the code for your game, and make your custom version of the UE4 editor available to UE4 subscribers as a separate download.
In scenario, you don’t need to keep your game updated to be compatible with the latest version of the editor from Epic. Mod makers can use your version of it.
Now that the launcher has support for making multiple versions of UE4 available via “slots”, perhaps we could find a way to expose these for custom user forks of the code/tools.
I am not expecting a detailed answer (considering Epic handles custom licensing differently based upon need) - but is the ability to distribute a custom version of the editor under a custom license negotiable at the time a deal is signed with Epic?
Simply speaking are there options going forward where one would graduate from the indie space to a larger organization/company where the means to pay for a license to distribute a locked down editor could be built into a custom licensing package instead of being offloaded onto the consumer? Or, is the one time $19 charge to the end user the way forward standard license, custom license et al?
The reason I am asking the above is because I believe, as you outlined, a custom version of the editor would be useful in a lot of cases - but the one time payment by end user would only apply to a particular static release. (same terms developers are under) If you as the developer update your fork of the editor, under the way licensing works, they would have to pay a one off charge of $19.00 again to be able to update.
Perhaps there is a way going forward for Epic to release source to a launcher we can customize (much like Epic currently uses) that would allow us as developers to distribute tools and content with Epic managing the payment and percentage for said tools and content. I would personally just assume not create a moddable game without having a more streamlined process for the sole fact that with the main digital distribution platforms today for games: Apple’s App Stores, Google Play, Steam we do not have to worry about tracking the individual only the gross revenue per quarter to pay the 5% owed to Epic, however, once you bring Mod tools into the equation (in the fashion you outlined) that could fast become an accounting nightmare. Custom launchers which are just micro mirrors of the larger Epic marketplace, but only referencing that particular developer’s content, could alleviate that strain.
Mod support for the platform I am planning on targeting isn’t on the table, but perhaps in the future it will be so answers to these questions are of great interest to me.
There needs to be a separation of what mods that we are talking about.
Content mods and code mods.
Content mods are such as Desert Combat and Silent Heroes for Battlefield 1942 - it was an adding of more models, sounds, textures and maps to an existing game without changing the core mechanics (above what was open in the packed script files that was shipped with the game). One other example is the ‘Real Space Combat’ mod for Star Wars Empire At War that changed the behavior, stats and cost for all space combat units by editing the xml-files shipped with the game.
Code mods are those that adjust/replace code, via dll’s etc, such as Action Quake for Quake 2 or Counter Strike for Half Life. These require access to partial or in some cases almost full (depending on engine) access to the games actual code.
One note is that within the realm of Content Mods some games allow all of the above components to be modified/added, while for others only a sub-set is accessable (compare Command & Conquer and C&C:Tiberian Dawn etc).
While it can be ‘doable’ to argue against potential modders/customers that the second modding type is one that they would need to purchase a license form, to get an UE4 engine, the Content Modders will have a much harder time swallowing it. Not only for the level of access they require (content vs code) but also because the modding scene to replace/add content is a great way for young teenagers to get into game development and they will neither have the funds nor access to payment methods that will allow them to cover the UE4 subscription cost.
Just something to have in the back of the mind.
thank you for taking the time to post here. I personally think that what you are proposing is absolutely the right way to be going about , even from the business side. People complaining about don’t really understand that the moddability situation with UE4 is more flexible than with Unity and other commercial products: If you want your game to be moddable in Unity you have to write your own system for it, you can’t bake unity assets in a production build of your game. Having players license UE4 as part of modding a game via Steam workshop is exactly what my team is intending to do and I see no with that, and it’s not going to be a hindrance.
Technical Question:
Assuming I distribute a build of my game tools (i.e. custom UE4 editor), how do mod authors package their content. I’d like them to produce a pak file that contains only their assets that can be loaded by the game. Do I need to give them full access to the original .uasset files for the game in order to produce a mod.
How does work with versioning between the mod and the main game taking in consideration shared data like Blueprint classes etc.
Thanks!
I appreciate the time taken to post (aren’t you supposed to be in Korea right now? 
) - the trouble everyone is really having with it, is that in order for the majority of games to be moddable, they need content importers and / or some degree of level editing tools. People categorically do not want their players to have to pay a license fee in order to mod their games. The game we’re working on is going to be sold at around $10 - a $20 modding fee is a hefty thing indeed; especially if they have to pay it every time we release an update and they’ll need to be a registered Unreal 4 user in order to re-access the modified source. We intend to be updating the core game iteratively over an extended period of time (two years or more) - is it really reasonable to expect players to potentially spend $480+ to mod a $10 game?
We’re looking at potentially writing our own tools now to get around it - including content importers and scripting language. It’s a nightmare 
You can’t modify Unity based games without writing your own content import pipeline either. In fact there is no solution for out of the box for anything out there. If you don’t want users to have to purchase Unity or Unreal then rolling your own modding is your only alternative.
Korea you say? Vacation or work? If there are any Epic events taking place in Korea I would love to hear about them as that is where I am right now. 
To collect up all the modders into the Unreal subscription pool might sound greedy, but it’s actually very rational if you consider that it gives far more than what an individual dev studio can produce for an equal given cost=time, as you are indicating.
Modding could split into two tiers:
Realistically, is most of your player base really interested in learning enough of the complexity to create full mods? If not, then full editor access wouldn’t help them anyway.
Compared with say Skyrim, which was weighed down by a terrible game engine to begin with, there is a true potential here for breaking-open and modifying things.
Today games and game engines suffer from problems of complexity, the most striking perhaps of these being no-backwards-compatibility for engine assets. If your team is smart enough, you can overcome these problems, but the mainstay of software development is not evolved or mature or intelligent enough to escape them, so you’re going to have these fundamental problems anyway and it’s impossible to have Unreal magically cater for every eventuality themselves. Keeping up-to-date is much smarter, because otherwise you’re creating gap between the old and the new, which is going to have to be bridged anyway if the modders want to move onto developing in Unreal. Why not just completely separate the content from the rendering/api/architecture? The priority is flexibility, so you can sacrifice things like hard drive space.
Left4Dead used to have regular updates that broke demo playback (when the version number changed) (it recorded the game events and played them back so you could make a video later.) even though it probably would have functioned mostly anyway. is the type of problem I’m talking about.
Something like a Modders’ License included with every game copy would create unnecessary EULA and DRM complexities, I think. But the idea of Unreal integrating with e.g. Steam, and switching near-seamlessly between game and editor, well… is certain in the future at some point, surely?
*The main point here is that gamers don’t get editing tools for free, or something? *(You might be a little confused now.) Well, you see, it’s the pro-corporate logic,—but such discussions aren’t smiley-faced and no-one really has the attention span for it, now, do they?, so they aren’t welcome in these spheres.
Sorry. But saying that someone’s opinion isn’t welcome just because it displeases you is unprofessional… It is welcome and we all have a right to voice our opinions. I have the attention span and many others do too.
Skyrim modding is still going on today. The shelf-life of Bethesda games is a record despite how one perceives their engines. The biggest reason is because of modding. Because the users can extend upon the world they already have.
Modders make their own tools if they have to and they will break through the barriers imposed by the developer if restricted. Asking for money to be able to that will not work very well(some few won’t mind), as they most likely will just find a way around your barrier.
Requiring an entire game engine editor just to mod makes no sense. They would have to recompile/rebuild the entire game every time they make any changes…
How do they distribute that to other players after? Oh yeah, by requiring anyone who wants to use said mods to subscribe for the engine. is endlessly requiring users to subscribe to the engine at least once… How does that make sense?
I think the debate here should be focused on how to successfully support modding in UE4. There are two ways: 1) access to the unreal tools and editor which requires a license, or 2) write your own modding API and content system. Option 2 should be familiar to anyone who has shipped a game using Unity: there is no real way to allow users to mod your game except through custom API’s and asset loaders.
For my project and business we’ve decided that option 1 is fine, but I think people have a valid case for option 2. For my part, I don’t understand exactly why people feel like Unreal should support some mechanism for option 2 as a built-in .
As you said Skyrim has a very active modding community and if you feel like a pay wall for unreal tools is a burden then by all means you should pursue option 2.
[EDIT] I agree *[that it should be about supporting modding.] But the problem with option 2 is that the user still requires a license(one time subcription) and is still bound by royalties
[EDIT] debate does focus on modding support because: if licensing limits it then it brings in support issues.
I don’t think option 2 mechanism should be built in because we all require different.
[EDIT 2] Unity legally let’s you use freely your own tools/extensions/plugins(plugins require pro though) and api as long as you don’t compete with the engine itself( the companies/developers that say modding requires the editor are just lazy to make their own tools/extensions/level editors).
I know I use and own both engines and we’re currently making another game with Unity which is fully modable(using runtime scripting and fbx runtime import and our own ingame editor) and I have full permission from UT directly. You are not required to have your user have a pro license(or any license or payment or royalties) just to use the tools/extensions you made. It is required though if you were to release your entire project and have them use the editor as well(which again would require rebuilding the game… is not useful for modding).
We were hoping to add modding(with our own tools) to our Ue4 game as well but it doesn’t seem logical if we have to require absolutely anyone modding and receiving the mods has to get a subscription to Ue4
No it doesn’t. The only thing that requires a license or royalties is distributing UE4 tools (in binary or source form) or source code.
That is not correct. Only if they have access to the UE4 editor and/or tools are they required to pay the license fee.
That is option 1.
Option 2 is you creating a set of mod tools from scratch, which you can create using the UE4 Editor. As in, a set of tools that is not the UE4 editor. As in, tools that every other game company has to make from scratch if they want to release mod tools. You can do just like any other game company and pay the just the 5% royalty since the tools you create are part of your game. You just can’t package any of the UE4 editor tools without the users paying for the UE4 editor.
Creating a set of mod tools is really no different than creating a game. You can provide tools to your users granted that those tools are your own creation and not pieces of UE4.
I need that confirmed by Epic because reading their posts/answers * EULA so far I don’t see that
To Epic:
Can you make your own in-game editor and have users use it freely?** without requiring them to pay for Ue4?
If I made my own tools and modders used those tools are they required to also have Ue4?
Yes I know how to make my own tools. My worry right now is if my users can use those tools freely without being required to also own Ue4.
Sorry, but I’d like to hear an answer from Epic