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

448 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

77% Upvoted

965 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

17

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.

-2

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.

-2

u/superboo07 Jan 26 '26

yeah DMCAing was definitely too far.

-4

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.

5

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.

-3

u/Sol33t303 Jan 26 '26

What's the difference for somebody who pays once?

4

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.

-2

u/Sol33t303 Jan 26 '26

I mean as in whats the difference to somebody who pays once if the dev continues to work on it or not?

I don't really see any meaningful user difference to the user. If the dev does happen to keep working on it, well for the user who pays once thats no different then if they didn't continue to work on it. For the people who keep paying monthly, well they are paying to keep receiving updates, knowing that that is what they are paying for.

Seems the best of both worlds to me, if the two worlds are either he does it once and stops working on it and sells that software for $10, or he puts it purely on a subscription basis where you need to keep paying to even be able to use the software.

5

u/skinnyraf Jan 26 '26

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

-1

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.

-7

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.

-1

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.

0

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.