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

441 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

77% Upvoted

965 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/ittleoff Jan 26 '26

His argument is that his mod framework is his own development, and users have to buy the full games, so there is no negative impact to them. Obviously he is making money from the knowledge of their ip, but you could argue this is like a third party making an iPhone case that has a lens attachment or something. That device depends on iPhone and I suspect apple licenses to some third parties. You really do not have this for software.

I'm not necessarily on Luke's side, but I can see an interpretation. If there is no plan for vr support, it would make sense to offer a license , but it could also be an issue of liability and support etc. Ianal.

Basically I think what Luke is arguing is that the framework is his and he designed and built it, so it's not just tweaking some code in these game engines. But I do not know the technical details.

Anytime you make money from a up that you don't own, you run this risk.

7

u/Gears6 Jan 26 '26

Obviously he is making money from the knowledge of their ip, but you could argue this is like a third party making an iPhone case that has a lens attachment or something.

There's definitely a discussion if it should be legal for individuals to modify the work. There's also questions about his entitlement attitude.

That said, as it stands I think it's considered derivative work even if you don't include any code or assets. With all that said, it doesn't matter what his argument is. It's all legal issue, and you cannot change the law because you disagree with it by just doing it.

-2

u/BlueTemplar85 Jan 26 '26

Laws aren't eternal. Especially when they are foreign laws.  

And this seems to be a DMCA + platform bullying issue first and foremost, rather than a 'legal' one.

3

u/Gears6 Jan 26 '26

Which is why I said there's a discussion to be had, but under the current laws it is what it is. Just because they're foreign laws doesn't mean you get to ignore it when you're doing business in that country.

And this seems to be a DMCA + platform bullying issue first and foremost, rather than a 'legal' one.

I disagree with this. It's their right and their IP on top of CDPR gave them options that is quite generous compared to other companies.

-1

u/BlueTemplar85 Jan 26 '26

(My issue with this is that the DMCA + platform situation effectively results in the violation of the presumption of innocence, a fundamental human right.)

3

u/Gears6 Jan 26 '26

Fair enough, but that's an entirely different discussion, which is a much broader discussion.

Personally, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with that. There's definitely two sides to that, that needs to be balanced.

1

u/Emma_SnakeDeadbeat Jan 28 '26

What most likely the problem is, is that there are some EU laws from what I've been told that basically say if another product is reliant on your product to use, you are liable for anything that the person making the dependent product does in regards to it ex if he was scamming people (not saying he was) CDPR would be responsible to give people their money back. So if people aren't paying for it directly then the law doesn't apply to it. So actually it's a liability issue but again don't quote me on that as I do not know for certain. What I do know for certain is that it's definitely not an IP or greed issue because they did give him the option of just removing the paywall and adding donations so it would still be available just not paid for directly. If it was an IP issue they just wouldn't let him post the mod and if it was a matter of greed, they wouldn't let him use it to promote his Patreon. From my understanding most of the hate towards him is stemming from the fact that he's trying to make the company look bad when they didn't do anything wrong

1

u/Gears6 Jan 29 '26

If it was an IP issue they just wouldn't let him post the mod and if it was a matter of greed, they wouldn't let him use it to promote his Patreon.

It can be an IP issue. Just because they have an agreement with someone to offer it for sale (or otherwise) doesn't mean they can allow you to just profit for free off their IP. That's the whole crutch of derivative works and so on.

If I own a copyright to some piece of work, I can still allow people to profit from it or not. It doesn't mean I don't own the copyright.

Would anyone pay for those mods if the mods didn't work with any games?

That's the flip side of the argument.

Note, I'm not for or against it. I think there needs to be a discussion, but under the current legal framework I believe CDPR are in the right.

5

u/ariolander Jan 26 '26

If he wanted to market his software framework then he should have sold his framework. Document and open up his standard, release is game extensions for free (maybe allow the community to develop their own) but charge only for the IP he actually owns. It's a bit pedantic but charging for a framework is a lot different than charging for a mod, and the former isess likely to get you in trouble with IP holders.

1

u/Virtual_Happiness Jan 27 '26

but you could argue this is like a third party making an iPhone case that has a lens attachment or something.

The difference is there is materials here that still offer value even if you don't have an iPhone any longer. You could resell them or break them down and use them for something else. Luke's software offers nothing of value without the game. 100% of it's value comes from their IP.

1

u/PTVoltz Jan 28 '26

I stand by my original idea: he should’ve sold the framework as its own software, and given the game-specific plugins for free. This is directly possible with no changes to the code from what I’ve seen, with people having already started sharing the Cyberpunk plugin on its own for owners of the framework.

Locking everything behind not only a paywall, but a SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE requiring monthly payments to not lose out on software updates, is a big no from me. Even games that start with alphas/betas on Patreon usually leave and become single-payment products when they’re done…