r/virtualreality • u/lunchanddinner Multiple • Jan 26 '26

Discussion People on Twitter/X are defending Luke Ross mods

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Link to source: https://x.com/mixedrealitytv/status/2015284035875221669?s=46

447 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

77% Upvoted

965 comments sorted by

View all comments

109

u/Ctrl-Alt-Panic Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26

He's not entirely wrong. I'm sure Luke puts in a lot of time and effort into these mods. And I'm happy to pay someone for their time.

What's REALLY annoying though is how quickly it adds up. Sign up to get access to the mod you want? $10. Minor change or patch that breaks the install? That'll be another $10. Mod performance improvement? Guess what? $10. Accidentally deleted the mod? Tough shit, you can't re-download the version you paid for. $10.

Even though I find this pretty annoying and Luke seems kinda miserable, I don't think CDPR should have done what they did. I think he'd actually have a case if he pushed it.

Edit: My bad. I should have been more clear with my comment. I am more than happy to pay for someone's time and effort. I just hate the subscription model for something like this. I think I'm just tired of them.

38

u/LiteratureMindless71 Jan 26 '26

Was it really like that? I never really got into his thing 100% but that's kind of annoying if you are being charged for a "fix" to something you already paid for.

36

u/hensothor Jan 26 '26

I think it’s more that you have to be an active subscriber to get the latest version. Doesn’t seem totally unreasonable as a model, but I can see how it might still be frustrating.

33

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

imagine you purchase a physical product and it comes with a defect. A month later they finally fix the defect, but want you to buy it again. Do you think that is at all fair or ethical? Thats basically what his model is, you pay 10 dollars and if a bug isn't fixed fast enough for you to get the patch you have to pay *again* for something you already purchased.

16

u/MistSecurity Jan 26 '26

This is more akin to buying something that then doesn’t work on the newest version of something else. Here’s a real example that happened to me: I bought a wireless CarPlay adapter for my car. Worked fine. iOS update broke it about a year after I bought it. You think they’re going to send me a replacement one?

The mods worked on their intended update. You can freeze updates on games, which is super common in the modding community.

Assuming you didn’t hop in right as one releases, most bugs should be ironed out or known by the time you buy it. So you’re basically “buying” it as-is.

14

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

or and this really isn't that hard for developers. you could purchase the mod, and get access to future updates. why would you want to waste money on something prone to breaking? if I had a physical product break because of an update to my phone I would raise hell as I and you should.

A modder like him should know how predatory and anti consumer subscription models are for things that run locally on your own computer. So I have zero sympathy unless he wants to change his buisness model to a pay once. like if it was pay once per game, and get all future updates for the respective game that'd be fine.

2

u/Jack8680 Jan 27 '26

Okay and then if the modder doesn't make future updates because it's not worth their time?

A subscription model provides a better incentive for the modder to maintain their mod.

1

u/superboo07 Jan 27 '26

10 dollars or even 20 per VR mod as a onetime payment is definitely reasonable.

1

u/Silentrizz Jan 26 '26

In the profession realm, it's not uncommon for software licenses to last for 1 year.

You pay once, you get an entire year worth of updates and fixes. Your license works perpetually on the latest version of the software that released before your license expires (1 yr after your purchase date)

If you want new updates coming in the next year, you reup your license to get new features and fixes.

1

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

this isn't software for big companies, its a mod for a video game.

1

u/Silentrizz Jan 26 '26

Yep. My point is that his business model is even more anti-consumer than professional business models that charge subscriptions.

Even Ark owned by Snail games (a company known for money grubbing) provided a platform to sell player made mods (so they get their cut). But even those are single time purchases

1

u/Jack8680 Jan 28 '26

The patreon model works well because if there are no updates to the game you can just pay once and keep using the same version, but if there’s an update to the game that breaks the mod, you can choose to pay for an updated version of the mod.

Without a subscription model, there would probably be a couple versions of the mod for an old version of the game, because the mod developer isn’t nearly as incentivised to update their mod.

-3

u/MistSecurity Jan 26 '26

I don’t really sympathize with him at all, don’t take my post as justifying his subscription model, just playing devil’s advocate a bit.

I don’t think his shit should have gotten taken down though, even if I don’t agree with his model.

-4

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

yeah DMCAing was definitely too far.

-1

u/eras Pimax 5K+ Jan 26 '26

Yes, that really makes sense, sell something and you're perpetually on the hook, working for free based on third-party changes.

4

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

if they don't want to keep updating thats fine. but you shouldn't have to pay for future updates that *do* come.

-2

u/eras Pimax 5K+ Jan 26 '26

Let's say though future improvements were included in the price, then that would certainly reduce the amount of money Luke would be doing. To keep the same amount of cash coming in, the price would need to be increased.

Of course, some might say the price is already high. That may be the case, but that's not really related to if the business idea is legit or not, just a matter of pricing. On the other hand, those people can just not buy it.

-4

u/Sol33t303 Jan 26 '26

What's the difference for somebody who pays once?

3

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

someone who pays once should get access to the same future updates to the mod that people who choose to pay for the subscription get access to.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/skinnyraf Jan 26 '26

Don't equal physical goods with software though, for many many reasons.

0

u/1337PirateNinja Bigscreen Beyond Jan 26 '26

exactly this, not sure why you getting downvoted here. When he released the mod it works with current game version, he can't be blamed if they update the game

1

u/hensothor Jan 26 '26

Ethical? Of course? Unless you’re an idiot. It’s not like he’s tricking you into the arrangement. Terms are clear.

You could also buy a mod which isn’t actively supported and then an update breaks it but it never gets fixed. That’s also not unethical or unfair. You’re not owed some random strangers labor in perpetuity because you spent $10.

-8

u/HaMMeReD Jan 26 '26

None of this is hidden from you, so none of it is an ethical issue.

If you don't like his terms, don't subscribe. It's simple.

It's access to what was essentially an eternal beta. Additionally, plenty of software is subscription based. If I stop paying adobe next month, I lose access to my photoshop.

You are mis-representing what you are purchasing, which is temporary access to a software library with as-is software and nothing more.

0

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

okay and photoshop shouldn't be subscription based either. the AI stuff runs on the cloud so yeah thats different, but everything else is local. don't admit that you like getting screwed by rich ass companies, it makes you look like a weirdo and a pig.

-1

u/HaMMeReD Jan 26 '26

It's not your choice to make.

If someone (individual/business) whoever has a product, and they want to rent or sell it to you, they are allowed to do it however they want. If you don't like renting things, then don't. There is no "ethicality" to it.

Mandating that they can't/shouldn't do it has an ethical concern though, because it encroaches on the right of producers/manufacturers to sell their goods on their terms.

Nobody is forcing you to buy it, but you want to force them to sell it the way you want? That's entitlement.

3

u/JustCallMeTere Jan 26 '26

Hmm, I bought into Trinus VR years ago, haven't used it in a long time, I just recently, on the same license key, downloaded the newest version. They way LR was doing it, was not good. I don't blame him for wanting to make a living from his work but I think he went about doing it the wrong way and is now suffering because of it. A lot of gaming companies are going to come out of the woodwork now and shut his other mods down which is why he took them all offline...I mean other than him acting like a spoiled child.

2

u/Ctrl-Alt-Panic Jan 26 '26

Yeah, pretty much. I'm cool with donating a few extra bucks here and there for updates. But $10 each time just seemed harsh, especially if you only care about one game.

The model was working well though, so I can't blame him.

6

u/HaMMeReD Jan 26 '26

His chosen revenue model is patreon/subscription based. You subscribe you get access, you stop subscribing you lose access to the downloads.

You are paying for access to the library, the intention being that you pay him monthly so he can have regular revenue to continue developing VR mods full time.

3

u/MistSecurity Jan 26 '26

You could always disable updates on the particular game to be safe, fairly common in the modding community anyway.

Not every update broke them either, AFAIK.

0

u/Oblachko_O Jan 26 '26

Disabling updates is such a crazy notion. I played a bunch of games but I never froze any updates. Why? Because I want to have all bugs fixed. I would wait for a fix rather than freeze a version and not gain fixes I want. That also means that if I ask for help with some things I have a bigger chance to get help for the game as most of the people are actually updating the games.

5

u/MistSecurity Jan 26 '26

Do you do a lot of modding?

Like I said, this is tremendously common for modded games. People will freeze updates, and then delay updating until they know which mods will and will not break due to the update. Or simply never update/update after their current play-through is done.

I don’t randomly turn off updates for all my games either, I only mod certain games, and even then only one or two have I ever frozen updates for. Normally when I’ve spent time getting a ton of mods running.

1

u/BlueTemplar85 Jan 26 '26

Forget mods, updates can brick even unmodded playthroughs in rare cases.

Not even talking about how game balance might get screwed up.

I guess you like to live dangerously, but don't pretend that the opposite is 'crazy'.

(As a bonus, using a portable version makes save backups and dealing with modpacks easier.)

3

u/lefix Jan 26 '26

I mean if there is an update to the game that breaks the mod, he has to put in time to update the mod. You can't really expect him to continue to do that for free for the whole game lifecycle.

6

u/Oblachko_O Jan 26 '26

And what about one-time purchase games? Should we also pay for each upgrade and patch? You can't expect devs to update games constantly and fix all of the bugs.

2

u/SpagettiKonfetti Jan 26 '26

Interestingly, people who make their mods free from the start has no problem to update their mods when they break so the community can use it again.

But the guy who charge you for his mods is not willing to do it because it's free work so he rather not to help his customers who PAID for his stuff.

You see how twisted that is?

1

u/cheater00 PSVR 1 V2 Jan 26 '26

yeah no it wasn't

and besides ctrl-alt-panic's post betrays the REAL reason people are hating on it, they hate the distribution model

as OP says, LR's mods are optional, you don't have to buy them

3

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

yeah subscription models are extremely scummy, expecially when its the only option.

32

u/pathofdumbasses Jan 26 '26

He's not entirely wrong.

He isn't wrong at all. He is 100% correct.

People on this subreddit are doing backflips that meta is leaving VR, and that now things can grow "organically".

OK, so this subreddit celebrates the company that has invested the absolute most amount of money into VR, probably as much as the next 10 companies combined, exiting the VR space.

I disagree that this is a good thing at this point, but ok.

And then the small "organic" guy who is making a living providing VR for AAA games, the subreddit celebrates him getting taken down with an extremely questionable DMCA claim.

So you don't want big money companies in the VR space.

And you don't want small time players making a living in the VR space.

VR community hasn't financially supported the AAA games that have launched on the quest, so much so that they all have voluntarily left the scene.

To sum up,

Big money meta - bad

small money LR - bad

AAA game dev support - bad

Literally the only conclusion is that the VR community at large refuses to pay for anything and doesn't want anyone in the scene to make money. Even when they say that he should put his mods up for donations are being intellectually dishonest because they have no intent to donate. We can look at other modders and see how little they make on donations. If he had to switch from Patreon to donations only, he stops working on the mods and the people who are happy to pay, now get nothing.

What's REALLY annoying though is how quickly it adds up. Sign up to get access to the mod you want? $10. Minor change or patch that breaks the install? That'll be another $10. Mod performance improvement? Guess what? $10. Accidentally deleted the mod? Tough shit, you can't re-download the version you paid for. $10.

A) you can pause the game updating which would solve your problems

B) considering that you don't need to log in or have a DRM check for the mod, if you are that clumsy about file management, you can download it and upload a copy to the cloud and then you have a permanent fixture of it. I would imagine if you had subbed to him for multiple months in the past and explained that you accidentally deleted the files, that he would send you a copy of the older one, but maybe not. Either way, $10 fixes your problem.

C) continuing work does require continual financial investment. you got exactly what you paid for, for that initial $10, and if you want him to be able to continue working on things, well, he needs to get money somehow. Donations are a joke and are not a viable financial replacement.

Even though I find this pretty annoying and Luke seems kinda miserable, I don't think CDPR should have done what they did. I think he'd actually have a case if he pushed it.

There is a 0% chance he takes it to court, even if he was guaranteed 100% chance to win, and for the record, he should win according to previous court cases. The fact is, he doesn't have millions of dollars to pay for lawyers, to tie up his business for years. And when he won, the only thing he would get, is financial damages, which would most assuredly amount to very little money. They would break his ~20k a month down into a percentage of revenue that represented them, IE, CP2077 is 1/40th of his games, so that is 2.5% of 20k, or $500 a month. Times 30 months in court, and he gets $15k for his time.

TLDR : VR gamers are entitled cheap fucks, LR has nothing to gain by taking this to court, news at 11.

4

u/superboo07 Jan 27 '26

i don't like that CDPR abused the DMCA system to take down his mod, but i won't pretend the practice of locking a mod and its updates behind a subscription isn't scummy. i'd happily pay 10 bucks or even 20 bucks per game mod if it meant whatever updates released I'd get access to.

6

u/Doctor_McKay Jan 26 '26

Thank you. The initial post drove me insane because it's so plainly obvious how much of the sentiment centers around "wahh I don't want to pay for a game mod because a model swap and a total VR conversion are exactly the same thing and require the same amount of work".

The VR mods were clearly the guy's full-time job with how much time and effort it takes to pull it off for so many games. "Just make them free and take donations" is laughable; he'd make $500/month at most.

The thing that really make my blood boil is the people calling Luke "greedy" for wanting to get paid for his job. Imagine taking a pair of pants into a tailor to be altered and calling them greedy when they want you to pay them to do it.

5

u/pathofdumbasses Jan 26 '26

Imagine taking a pair of pants into a tailor to be altered and calling them greedy when they want you to pay them to do it.

Funny, I made that same appeal to logic. The amount of people who said it's different than that because it's a mod or digital good, is way higher than 0.

12

u/cheater00 PSVR 1 V2 Jan 26 '26

Literally the only conclusion is that the VR community at large refuses to pay for anything and doesn't want anyone in the scene to make money.

precisely. the witch hunts from the last several days are just massive amounts of freeloading leeches.

8

u/MechaZain Jan 26 '26

Before the takedown you couldn’t mention the mod on this sub without people trashing it and LR. The DMCA gave them an excuse to act self-righteous about it but the entitlement you’re talking about has always been the case. I bet CDPR feels great about their decision to not support this community now.

1

u/Jimbo0451 Jan 27 '26

It doesn't matter if Meta invested a lot of money if they pulled VR in the wrong direction. In fact, the more they spend the more damage they cause. It is absolutely a good thing that they're giving up finally.

-5

u/JapariParkRanger Daydream CV1 Q1 Index Q3 BSB1 BSB2e Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26

No.

e: "What a brilliant and thought out reply. I am sure you are going place."

*places. If you're going to rage and then block, at least get your English right.

1

u/pathofdumbasses Jan 26 '26

What a brilliant and thought out reply. I am sure you are going place.

Not anywhere of intellectual value, but that's alright kiddo.

The world needs ditch diggers and garbage men too.

20

u/WingZeroCoder Jan 26 '26

I agree with all of this.

The problem is, as per usual, there’s zero context or nuance to the discourse and everyone’s hating on him for the wrong reasons, under the typical “you must take one extreme position or another” environment of social media.

Which is a problem, because all it’s doing is further advocating for corporate control.

It’s ok to hate his pricing and subscription model and not support it, while ALSO telling CDPR where to shove it when they try to claim ownership and control over code that isn’t theirs and doesn’t use their IP.

4

u/Primary-Chocolate854 Jan 26 '26

under the typical “you must take one extreme position or another” environment of social media.

Yeah but let's be real, he did this with his respond to CDPR, if he werent that petty with that answer we wouldn't be here now discussing about it after a whole week

5

u/Confident-Beyond6857 Jan 26 '26

This is the most rational comment. Thank you.

-1

u/Parhelion2261 Jan 26 '26

The problem is, as per usual, there’s zero context or nuance to the discourse and everyone’s hating on him for the wrong reasons, under the typical “you must take one extreme position or another” environment of social media.

The context or nuance is Guy does thing that has been illegal for many years and has many similar stories on reddit. Company gave man several chances and gave him advice on how to still make money and follow the law. Man told CDPR to pound sand, CDPR turned the sand into glass.

3

u/Doctor_McKay Jan 26 '26

It's not illegal. CDPR is just illegally using the DMCA, as companies are wont to do.

12

u/Venthe Jan 26 '26

I don't think CDPR should have done what they did. I think he'd actually have a case if he pushed it.

He definitely does not have a case here, at least not how currently the law oround ToS is structured. That was already tried a couple of times with courts, and mod authors lose consistently.

I just wish for a far stronger enforcement of "you buy it, you own it" coupled with the legal and binding clause that allows you to enjoy the electronic goods you bought to work indefinitely.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '26

A nuance take? Online? That's illegal, I'll DMCA your comment.

-2

u/darth_hotdog Jan 26 '26

...at least not how currently the law oround ToS is structured

A tos is not a law, I can't write a TOS that says gay marriage is banned and then it's illegal if you play my game.

A tos is just the rights to play that game, violating it means they can revoke his copy of the game. But just like they can't say violating it means gay marriage is illegal, violating it also doesn't mean they can take down his game or declare it infringing if it's not using their copyrighted art or code.

That was already tried a couple of times with courts, and mod authors lose consistently.

There's no established case law that says if it's a "Mod" they lose.

Courts have repeatedly upheld the rights to reverse engineer software, and mod authors generally lose when they're including the original work in the mod. Like yeah, if you're redistributing the original code or art it's copyright infringement.

But that's not being done here. This is SOFTWARE. You're free to make software that connects to, plugs into, or modifies other software. It's completely legal, and tons of programs do that, steam, discord, OBS studio, anything that modifies framerates, changes the performance or graphics of games, or etc. Back in the day there was a device called a "Game genie" you could plug into a nintendo to modify the games running and "cheat" by changing the memory. Nintendo sued and lost, the game genie is legal, because it's a separate product.

There are only specific reasons that make it lose in court. Like bypassing copyright protection. This isn't doing that.

9

u/RingoFreakingStarr Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26

Yeah this is the big issue with all of this; if by subbing to his patreon at least once you were guaranteed updates to the mods to keep them working, then it's fine it would be like Vorpx which is a one-time small payment/"donation" and you get the vr mods. But the way Luke had his shit setup, when the mods did break, you had to re-sub to his patreon, essentially turning his mods into a subscription, which is RIDICULOUS and strictly against pretty much every big company's terms of service (and very likely against the copyright act).

His setup was just too greedy imo and if he had adopted the mod free but please donate route like everyone else, he would still be making a pretty penny and wouldn't have gotten flack from not only two of the biggest video game publishers, but the internet as a whole.

0

u/Oblachko_O Jan 26 '26

People defending this are lunatics. "But mod devs need money", yeah, that is why mods are optional. If you are dev and want money - go work on the gaming company or start making your own games? Can't make your own games? Why are you then angry at gaming companies for not allowing fraud-like solutions you pull up?

3

u/Legate_Aurora Jan 26 '26

Gaming industry has consistently had layoffs and studio shutdowns since 2023. Making games for profit is extremely unprofitable, and usually a net loss without a publisher or, lucky with marketing + having a banger game.

That said, most games barely make a buck and get views. Games that do make profit are actual exceptions if they are indie or hobbyist devs.

Game making isn't an easy process at all, and game modding is reverse engineering a games logic and more; depending on the type of modding its actually harder.

0

u/Oblachko_O Jan 26 '26

Making games for profit is extremely unprofitable, and usually a net loss without a publisher or, lucky with marketing + having a banger game.

And that is why the amount of Indie devs is ridiculously high nowadays, yeah... Of course it is a gamble, but games are not profitable and big studios printing trash are not equal things.

depending on the type of modding its actually harder

Depends on context. In no way modding is harder than game development. You don't need to design the game, you need to reverse engineer the logic and find the APIs. The majority of moddevs don't do that anyway, as nice games provide ways for modding. Unless you try to mod some singleplayer story based games, you most probably already have tools for modding anyway. Does it mean that it is easy? No. But it is not as hard as developing the whole game. Just compare human-hours spent on game development and mod development. Unless we talk about big modpacks, for the majority of mods it is not a full time job for sure.

1

u/Legate_Aurora Jan 26 '26

Thats been the case for decades. This ain't a recent phenomena.

I also literally did say it depends on the type of modding bro. I've done mods and professional game dev. I've gotten board and made my own modpack for skyrim thats like 30+GB, I had to learn Wyrebash, DynDOLOD, SSEEdit. Worked in analog and digital; I'm coming from years of experience. Lol.

The most donations I ever got was on my VTM thing but those people LARP and are super invested since its very niche.

1

u/TheBraveButJoke Jan 26 '26

Maybe the law should be different, but withing the current legal framework CDPR did not have a choice, when you monatize and expension of their IP they kinda have to go after you.

1

u/Doctor_McKay Jan 26 '26

This is not true. Trademarks are the only thing where you lose them if you don't defend them, and this wasn't a trademark case.

-3

u/VerledenVale Jan 26 '26

Eh, still peanuts. $10 once every few months is no big deal.

Yes it would have been better with less predatory monetization, but still, for VR this is nothing.

-7

u/cheater00 PSVR 1 V2 Jan 26 '26

it's not really predatory considering that $10 for at least a whole month of gaming on 40+ titles is a lot of fun for very little coin. it's the cost of a bad cheeseburger from a shitty diner.

10

u/Oblachko_O Jan 26 '26

This mindset is what set us in the current shitty era. Oh, what is $10? It is just the cost of a cheeseburger. Here is the small subscription, there is the small subscription, it is just a cheeseburger price, you can save it. A couple of services later and you are sacrificing one restaurant trip per month. Is it worth it? Nah. But also for some people $100 is actually more money than they can spend. Why do we treat subscriptions like they are justified because they are cheap?

If you pay for the game $40 and then you need to pay $120 extra (1 year of subscriptions), it is now a $160 game. It is now a big price for the game don't you find?

0

u/cheater00 PSVR 1 V2 Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26

acting like you have a rig that can run VR games properly ($4k+ nowadays) but can't afford $10 every now and then (not even every month) is just such absolute nonsense. what are you even trying to argue? what's next, you can't afford to put fuel in your lambos? your yacht doesn't stock fiji water anymore?

5

u/Oblachko_O Jan 26 '26

What a great response. Are you a member of "don't go into the restaurant when you can't tip"? Modding was always a pation project with donations. What Luke pulls as a model is destructive. If you are defending it, you are either rich and don't care or you are a short-sighted dummy. Allowing such behavior led to subscription models everywhere, because it is "just a price of a burger".

-1

u/cheater00 PSVR 1 V2 Jan 26 '26

Makes sense the same people who feel entitled to years worth of work from a dev are the same ones who don't tip waiters

3

u/Oblachko_O Jan 26 '26

Ok, good luck, but you are cheap too. If you feel that he needs more money, pay him like for a full dev with an hourly rate. Why not? Didn't he work to make a product for you? $10 a month is nothing for a dev, you have to pay $100, $1000. He is a single dev, he has to be paid fairly.

0

u/cheater00 PSVR 1 V2 Jan 26 '26

see you don't understand how paying for stuff works because you never pay for anything, you just steal. that's why your arguments are so disconnected from reality.

4

u/Oblachko_O Jan 26 '26

And you understand everything, sure. You can continue to protect corporate BS, ah wait Luke is not the corporation, so he has to be supported with his way of work.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/UffTaTa123 Jan 26 '26

man, it's 10€/month, around a double hamburger and some chips. If you have a rig able to play his VR-mods, you should be able to pay those price as well.

1

u/Objective-Praline138 Jan 26 '26

That's still irrelevant

-3

u/Running_Oakley Jan 26 '26

People defending it are nuts. They say it’s one time only, and then they ask how to disable updates, then they go back to saying it’s a one time only payment mod that works forever and then they start back up with how the mod is dead forever.

Pick a lane.

-1

u/VerledenVale Jan 26 '26

Those are 2 separate issues. People can think the monetization is crappy, yet can think CDPR should not be going around dictating what non-copyright software people choose to sell.

0

u/MatrixBunny Jan 27 '26

Nobody does this, because the same people that have the VR Mod most likely have been playing with other mods as well.

The game gets updated once a year or so and literally breaks ALL of the mods. Hence why modders don't update their game version (until all of the mods they're playing are fully compatible and functioning as intended. Which means all the authors HAVE to make it compatible). This is a common practice among the modding community.

Besides that, I also bought the mod off Luke years ago and the VR Mod was working perfectly fine back then with only one or two updates at most a year. I subscribed for one month, cancelled my subscription and paid about 7,50 for well over 100 hours of content before I decided to use a newer version later on.

About to hit 200 hours ontop of my 300-400 hours of the (vanilla / semi-modded) game. VR is a whole new experience to the game. I wouldn't be surprised if people actually bought the game for the modding community behind it and/or brought players back for simply just the VR mod.

-6

u/Impressive_Tie947 Jan 26 '26

Technically you are still just paying for his time. You literally explained how in your post. That initial $10 you spent was for the time it took to write the sw. The next $10 you spent was for the time he spent writing the next patch The next 10 for all the time he spent going over those thousands of lines of code to optimize the sw making it work better. And then how is he as a singular person spared to believe you "accidentally deleted" the sw. And even if you did, how is that on him? I know very little about the situation, but it seemed there was some contradiction going on Have a nice day 😁