Modding and user-generated content: legal, economic and strategic aspects

Mods – video game modifications created by players – are an integral part of gaming culture. Whether new levels, improved graphics or completely transformed game worlds: User-generated content (UGC) can help a game to stay alive for years. Classics such as Minecraft, Skyrim or Grand Theft Auto (GTA) owe their continued success to an active modding community. For young game developers in Germany, however, important questions arise: What is legally permitted? How can developers control mods without alienating the community? And what economic benefits or risks are associated with mods?

In this blog post, we shed light on the legal foundations under German law as well as economic and strategic considerations relating to mods and UGC – formulated neutrally and with a focus on games law. In doing so, we tie in with topics that have already been addressed in guides on itmedialaw.com and provide practical examples.

Legal basis in Germany for mods and UGC

Copyright: In Germany, the Copyright Act (UrhG) protects video games as complex works (program code, graphics, sound, etc.). In principle, the following applies: Modding affects copyright. A modification of a game usually constitutes an adaptation or redesign of a copyrighted work. According to § 23 UrhG, adaptations of a work may only be published or distributed with the consent of the author. This means that anyone who creates and distributes a mod interferes with the exclusive right of the game developer (or rights holder) to create derivative works. Even if mods are created free of charge and fan-driven, copyright restrictions (exceptions) are generally not relevant – even Even if mods are created free of charge and fan-driven, copyright restrictions (exceptions) are generally not relevant – even non-commercial fan content is subject to copyright. An itmedialaw guide emphasized that mods and fan content are relevant under copyright law, even if no money is involved. A general exception such as “free use”, which used to be in the law, is now severely restricted; only special cases such as parody or pastiche (Section 51a UrhG) can justify a mod without permission. An example would be a mod that alienates a game in a satirical way – this could be permitted as a parody. However, most mods (new quests, improved graphics, additional items, etc.) do not fall under this category, but are considered adaptations that require permission.

Own vs. third-party content in the mod: It is important to differentiate which content a mod uses:

• Does the mod use original material from the game? – For example, game textures, 3D models or code from the main game. Then it is clearly an adaptation of the protected material. Example: A mod replaces all character models in shooter game X with its own models, but retains the game world and engine. The game world graphics and the code come from the original game and are protected by copyright – the mod requires the permission of the rights holder of game X. Otherwise the distribution of the mod would be a copyright infringement.
• Does the mod consist exclusively of the modder’s own material? – For example, a total conversion mod that uses the game engine but creates all new graphics, sounds and story elements itself. In this case, the modder owns the copyright to the elements he has created. However, his work uses the engine and often the basic game design of the original game. Without the original game, the mod can hardly be run. Legally, it usually remains a dependent work: the modder has rights to his new content, but he needs the consent of the original developer to use this content within the game. In practice, the modder can sell their own assets separately, but they cannot simply sell the complete mod package based on the game as their own game.
• Does the mod contain third-party content? – This is where the situation becomes even trickier: If a mod uses protected third-party material (e.g. well-known brands, characters or music for which neither modders nor game developers have rights), this constitutes an infringement of third-party rights. Example: A fan mod integrates Star Wars characters into Minecraft without a license from Disney/Lucasfilm. The mod therefore not only infringes the rights of Mojang (Minecraft), but also those of Disney. Such mods are particularly problematic from a legal point of view and are often removed upon notification by the third-party rights holder. As the developer of a game, you should make it clear in your own modding guidelines that mods may not use third-party copyrighted content without permission.

Personal rights of the author: In addition to economic copyrights, there are also personal rights of the author in Germany. In particular, the right to preserve the integrity of the work (Section 14 UrhG) allows authors to prohibit distortions or serious changes to their work that impair their intellectual or personal interests in the work. In theory, a game developer (or the individual creative author behind the game, such as a game designer or artist) could argue that a certain mod “defaces” or distorts their work – for example, because the mod turns a family-friendly game into a more violent version or drastically changes the atmosphere. In practice, such moral rights rarely play a role in the games sector, as long as the developer holds the economic rights and decides for themselves whether mods are permitted. If a developer generally tolerates or promotes mods, it is assumed that he also agrees to a modification of the work, so that Section 14 UrhG is not invoked separately. Nevertheless, you should be aware that prohibited content in mods (e.g. unconstitutional symbols, pornographic depictions in a game that is otherwise suitable for young people) is not only legally problematic, but can also damage the good reputation of the brand – which we will discuss in more detail in the section on trademark law.

Special case software and technical aspect: Video games contain computer programs, which is why the software protection rules (§§ 69a ff. UrhG) must also be observed. A recent development in European law is of interest here: The case of Sony Interactive Entertainment v Datel (ECJ C-159/23) concerned a mod tool that changed variables in the RAM of a running game (in order to remove certain restrictions). The ECJ ruled at the end of 2024 that such purely temporary interventions in RAM do not constitute unauthorized editing of the program code – in other words, there is no copyright infringement of the software as long as the code itself remains unchanged and nothing is permanently reproduced. This means for mods: Runtime modifications (e.g. trainers that change values while the game is running, or mods that unlock things via memory patches) may be permissible under copyright law. However, such tools are often considered cheats. Program modifications unauthorized by the developer can still violate the terms of use (see point 2) or anti-cheating protection measures, possibly even § 108b UrhG (prohibition of circumventing technical protection measures), if copy protection or anti-manipulation technology is circumvented. The bottom line for classic mods is that they modify the game’s files or integrate new files into the game: This constitutes a modification of protected material, which would be illegal without permission.

Result: Without the consent of the rights holder, modding is generally illegal as soon as the mod is distributed or made publicly accessible. The rights holder (game developer/publisher) has the right to prohibit anyone from using their works – this also includes the creation and distribution of derivative works such as mods. The modder who creates their own content is granted copyright to the new creative elements in the mod (for example, a self-designed weapon or quest story). However, they can only exercise these rights within the boundaries of the original game. For example, they may use their self-made 3D character as their own work elsewhere, but not simply publish the entire mod (including the game material) without authorization. This means for developers: They have the upper hand – they decide whether mods are tolerated or even promoted, or whether they take legal action against them. We will discuss how to make and shape this decision next.

Can developers ban modding – and how?

Domestic rights to your own game: As the developer or publisher, you have the rights to the game and can therefore also prohibit the game from being modified. There are various ways to restrict or prevent modding:

• Contractual (EULA/AGB): The most common method is via the End User License Agreement (EULA) or General Terms of Use. This can clearly specify whether and to what extent modding is permitted. Many games contain clauses such as “The user may not make any changes to the game that are not authorized by the manufacturer” or “Reverse engineering and modifications are prohibited unless permitted by law”. A developer can therefore expressly prohibit modding in the license terms. Example: An online game could stipulate in the EULA that any modifications to the client or the game files are prohibited – this gives the developer contractual leverage to prosecute modders if necessary (e.g. by blocking accounts for breach of contract). Some developers who actually want to allow mods nevertheless formulate strict clauses so that they can intervene in case of doubt. This tension can be seen, for example, with Paradox Interactive: their games are known for mods, but some EULA versions contained a blanket ban on modifications – which confused the community until it was clarified that modifications are of course tolerated within the official modding interfaces. Important: Contractual bans are primarily binding for players who have accepted the contract. Anyone who mods against the EULA risks contractual penalties or account sanctions, but the EULA does not apply directly to third parties (e.g. someone who offers a mod for download without using the game themselves). You would then have to fall back on copyright law.
• Technical: An effective method is to design the game in such a way that mods are difficult or impossible to integrate. For example, console games are often “closed”, i.e. files cannot be exchanged without a special modding toolkit. Developers can install technical protection measures – such as encryption of game files, checksums, anti-cheat software – to detect and block changes. An extreme example is competitive online games: Here, server checks or anti-cheat systems prevent modifications in order to exclude cheats. However, relying solely on technical barriers is often a cat-and-mouse game and can also affect legitimate mods. Many PC games that do not have official mod support are still modded by fans using unofficial patches or tools, provided the community is motivated enough to circumvent the technical hurdles.
• Enforce legally (Copyright/DMCA): If an unwanted mod is published, the developer can take direct action under copyright law – such as issuing warnings or DMCA takedowns (in the USA). In Germany, injunctive relief could be sought in court if someone distributes a mod without permission. Prominent example: Nintendo regularly takes action against fan games or mods of its games (keyword Streisand effect, more on this in a moment). Nintendo sees mods as an infringement of its copyright and trademarks and has even harmless fan projects shut down by means of a cease and desist order. A developer can therefore ban mods by consistently pursuing all infringements. However, they must then be prepared to communicate this tough stance to the community.

Different types of mods – different approaches: Not all mods are the same. They can be roughly divided into minor changes, add-ons and total conversions. Legally, the boundaries are fluid, but a developer can make strategic distinctions here:

• Small changes (mini mods): These include cosmetic adjustments, UI mods, bug fixes by the community or quality-of-life improvements. Such mods have a minimal impact on the game. Many developers tacitly tolerate such mods, even if the EULA contains a general ban. The reason: these mini-mods hardly harm the developer – on the contrary, they show fan engagement and may improve the gaming experience. For example, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim had an unofficial patch created by fans for years that fixed bugs that Bethesda had not fixed itself. Bethesda did not stop this mod, even though it technically changed the game – it was tolerated in the interest of game quality. As a developer, you should consider the following: A general ban on all changes could seem disproportionately strict. It makes sense to at least allow private or minor mods as long as they do not cause any mischief. Some EULAs state, for example, that modifications for purely private use are permitted – which indirectly allows small mods as long as they are not distributed or disrupt the online game.
• Add-ons and content mods: These include mods that add new content (new levels, items, characters) or expand existing content, but leave the base game recognizable. These mods can enrich the game and are often actively promoted. Mojang, for example, tolerates and promotes countless Minecraft mods that add new items or biomes – as long as certain rules are adhered to (e.g. no commercialization without consent). Developers can differentiate here: They may allow mods as long as they remain free and don’t violate certain guidelines. Many companies say something like: “You may mod our game and share mods, but only free of charge and only with attribution, and we reserve the right to prohibit individual mods.” A developer can publish modding guidelines on their own website that explicitly approve add-ons (temporary, revocable license) to create legal certainty for modders. This still leaves the option of intervening in problematic cases.
• Total conversion mods: These are extensive mod projects that transform the game into an almost new game. The original engine is used, but the setting, story and often even the game mechanics are changed. Examples: Enderal (total conversion of Skyrim) or Black Mesa (originally a mod remake of Half-Life). Total conversions are a double-edged sword for developers. On the one hand, they can generate enormous attention and even boost sales of the base game (because you often need the original game to play the total conversion). On the other hand, they are very close to being independent competitors. Prohibit or allow? There are different approaches here: Bethesda has always tolerated total conversions as long as they are based on their own IP and require the original – there are dozens of great mods for Elder Scrolls and Fallout that are tolerated. Valve went even further with Black Mesa: they even gave the mod team permission to sell their product commercially on Steam (more on this later). In contrast, some other rights holders react more strictly, especially when a total conversion incorporates third-party IP. Nintendo, for example, had AM2R (Another Metroid 2 Remake) – a total conversion of an older Metroid game by fans – stopped by DMCA, as it was in fact a competing product to the official remake. Conclusion: Developers can prohibit total conversions (via EULA and copyright), but often decide to allow them as long as they remain free fan projects and benefit the original. An interim solution is to allow total conversions only with prior consent/license – i.e. fans have to ask first. In practice, however, modding often happens spontaneously, and most studios do not define a separate permission just for total conversions – the general modding policy then applies.

Online vs. offline: An important difference lies in whether a mod affects the online experience. Cheat mods or hacks in multiplayer games are practically always banned and strictly prosecuted by developers, as they destroy the balance of the game. Tough action is taken here (see Bossland ruling: the BGH ruled in 2017 that the distribution of WoW bot software is illegal). For single-player mods, on the other hand, many developers are more tolerant, as they only affect the single player. Rockstar Games, for example, tolerates GTA V mods in story mode, but has made it clear that mods that affect online mode are prohibited. This differentiation can also be made in the terms of use (“Modifications that affect multiplayer features are prohibited”). As a developer, you should communicate clearly: Where do we draw the line? Cheats and hacks are generally separate topics that are consistently prohibited – also for legal reasons (keyword: distortion of competition, circumvention of protective measures).

To summarize: Yes, developers can ban modding by contractually prohibiting it and legally enforcing it. They also have the option of differentiating according to the type of mod – tacitly allowing small private mods, but banning far-reaching changes without permission, for example. A consistent line is important, because the community looks closely at which mods are banned and which are not. A blanket ban in the T&Cs may be necessary to protect legal rights, but in practice you can still make a benevolent decision about when to intervene. We will see the consequences of excessive strictness in the next section.

Risks of aggressive law enforcement (Streisand effect)

If developers crack down on modders, this may be legally permissible, but it carries considerable reputational risks. The gaming community reacts sensitively when beloved fan projects are stopped by cease and desist orders. An overly aggressive approach can cause the Streisand effect – the attempt to suppress something leads to even more public attention and criticism.

Example Take-Two vs. modding tool: In 2017, Take-Two (publisher of GTA V) had the popular modding tool OpenIV shut down via a warning letter, as it allegedly violated the EULA. OpenIV was essential for countless single-player mods in GTA. The reaction from fans was devastating: Within a short time, negative reviews on Steam for GTA V were hailing down, and a shitstorm was building. Rockstar Games – the development studio behind GTA – quickly had to calm things down. In the end, the decision was partially reversed and Rockstar announced that single-player mods would be allowed from then on as long as they did not affect the online mode. This incident shows: Through disproportionate law enforcement (against a tool that means a lot to the community), the publisher gambled away massive goodwill and was forced to backpedal. The damage to the brand image and customer relationships was considerably greater than the original “damage” caused by mods.

Community anger and breach of trust: Modding communities often consist of the most dedicated fans of a game. When these fans of all people are targeted by legal means, it can lead to alienation. Players feel patronized, their creativity punished. In the worst case, a narrative emerges: “The developer is taking action against its most loyal fans.” This can lead to boycotts, bad press articles and a long-lasting loss of trust. Young indie developers in particular should weigh up whether it is worth upsetting a small section of the community, even if they are legally in the right. Public perception often counts more here than the legal situation.

The Streisand effect in concrete terms: The term comes from the fact that banning a piece of information makes it even more popular. Applied to mods, this means that if a studio bans a mod, many players become curious about it. The message “Studio XYZ bans fan mod” spreads like wildfire in gaming forums and news sites – and suddenly tens of thousands of people know about a mod that perhaps only a few knew about before. This sometimes leads to the mod being uploaded again in other places (possibly anonymously or abroad, where the developer has less legal standing). Control therefore slips away. Instead of removing the mod from the world for good, it has been made more famous. Only very rare and well-founded cases (e.g. where a mod really has illegal content) find understanding in the community. In the case of normal fan content, it usually backfires.

Negative climate for the future: Another risk factor: If a developer becomes known for rigorously banning mods, this will deter future buyers, especially in the PC gaming scene, where modding is seen as part of the culture. One example is Minecraft: if Mojang had strictly banned mods at the beginning, the huge scene of “Minecraft modpacks” and server modifications would never have emerged – possibly damaging its long-term success. Players invest time and creativity in mods; if they have to worry that the developer will have their work deleted at any time, they are more likely to put this energy into other games. For the “brand” of the game, an anti-modding course can therefore be poison. Word gets around if a studio is anti-modding, which is a negative criterion for many players these days.

Legal proceedings are expensive and time-consuming: from a purely economic point of view, you must not forget that they are also expensive: Warning someone about a mod or even suing them costs time, money and nerves. International modders in particular (the community is global) quickly come up against legal enforcement hurdles. Is it worth taking action against a hobby developer overseas? Even if it is – your own legal department should perhaps take care of real threats (e.g. pirated copies, hacks) rather than fans. Moreover, there is always the chance that a court will see the matter differently or that there will be negative PR in the court proceedings.

To summarize: Aggressive law enforcement against modders is a double-edged sword. Legally possible, but strategically risky. The damage to customer loyalty and image can be greater than the benefits. Developers run the risk of losing the support of the community through rigorous action. The Streisand effect can lead to a banned mod becoming even more popular. Of course, there are cases where intervention is necessary (such as security-threatening hacks or clearly illegal content in mods). But the key is to proceed with a sense of proportion. In the next section, we look at the positive flip side: the benefits of allowing or even actively supporting mods instead of fighting them.

Advantages of toleration or contractual permission of mods (and models for co-earning)

Many successful developers find that it can be more worthwhile to tolerate or officially allow mods than to take action against them. A modding-friendly attitude brings with it various advantages – both idealistic and tangible economic ones.

Longer game life: Mods can significantly extend the product life of a game. A game that would actually be “finished” after playing through the story is always given new content through mods. Classics such as Skyrim (released in 2011) are kept up to date to this day thanks to thousands of mods – new quests, graphics card-demanding HD textures, gameplay overhauls, etc. ensure that players keep coming back even years later. For the developer, this means continued sales success (even years later, new players buy the game, attracted by the variety of mods) and a constant community that engages with the game. A game “with mods” remains a talking point, keeps popping up in Let’s Plays and streams (“Check out this cool mod for game X”), which is practically free marketing. Without mods, you would have to rely on expensive DLCs or updates – with mods, the community does it voluntarily.

Community loyalty and customer satisfaction: The fan community feels valued when the developer recognizes their creativity instead of suppressing it. This leads to stronger loyalty: Players identify with “their” game, craft content for it and become ambassadors. A tolerant modding policy signals: “We trust our players and welcome your ideas.” This promotes a positive atmosphere in forums and social media. Young developer studios in particular can build up a loyal fan base in this way. These fans will be more inclined to buy the studio’s next game – keyword brand loyalty. It also increases player satisfaction if they can customize the game according to their own ideas. A satisfied player in turn gives better ratings and is more likely to recommend the game to others.

Use creative potential: Mods are often seen as a driver of innovation. Players come up with features and content that the developers themselves might never have thought of. Think of great genre-defining mods: Defense of the Ancients (Dota) as a mod for Warcraft 3 founded the MOBA genre; PUBG basically started as an Arma mod and founded the battle royale trend. When developers allow mods, they open up their game to such experiments and experiences without having to do the development work themselves. In the best case scenario, developers can learn from popular mods, be inspired by them or even take up the idea (more on this in point 7). In short: mods provide free market research and a pool of ideas. An active mod scene shows which content is popular with players. Developers who observe these trends can further develop their own product in a targeted manner.

Contractual permission = legal certainty: Instead of just tacitly tolerating mods, a developer can proactively issue contractual permission. This is usually done via EULAs or specific modding license agreements (see point 5). The advantage: modders then have legal certainty that their actions are permitted as long as they adhere to the conditions. This security encourages more fans to create mods (those who are afraid of warnings don’t even start). For the developer, it means that the mods move within regulated channels – for example, you can define conditions such as “no selling of mods, no infringements, we can take your mod offline if necessary”. This maintains a certain amount of control, prevents uncontrolled growth (e.g. pornographic mods on official platforms) and still maintains a friendly attitude. Tolerance by contract thus creates a regulated environment: the community can be creative, but also knows what it has to watch out for.

Economic models: developers earn money from mods: One particularly interesting aspect is that developers can now earn money from mods if they are clever about it. There are several models in which the creators of a game can share in the success of mods:

• Mod marketplaces with revenue sharing: Platforms such as Steam Workshop (Valve) and Mod.io make it possible to offer mods in a structured way – partly for free, partly for a fee. In 2015, Valve tried to charge for mods for Skyrim in the Steam Workshop, which initially met with resistance. However, there are now more coordinated models: for example, Valve has so-called “Creators Program” for games such as Dota 2 or Team Fortress 2, where user-generated cosmetic items are sold and proceeds are shared. A portion goes to the modder/creator, a portion to the developer/publisher, and possibly to the platform. As an independent platform, Mod.io offers developers the opportunity to integrate an in-game mod store. Mods or UGC can be sold there; typically, the game developer can determine how the revenue is split. For example, a studio could decide: From each mod sales unit, the modder receives 50%, the developer 30%, the platform 20%. This way, the developer earns from every transaction, while the modders are motivated to create high-quality mods because they can earn from them. Such premium UGC models transform mods from a “hobby” into an ecosystem that benefits everyone: Players get cool new content, modders get money, developers get extra revenue. However, good community communication is important to avoid the impression that the developer only wants to cash in on fan content – transparency and fair distribution are the key here.
• Curate and sell content (Creation Club): Bethesda introduced the Creation Club after the first failed paid mods attempt. This is a platform within the games (e.g. Skyrim Special Edition, Fallout 4) where selected content is offered by modders that the publisher has previously checked. Users buy these mini DLCs for small amounts of money or in-game credits. Bethesda pays the modders (usually a lump sum in advance for their work) and then officially sells the result, which generates revenue for Bethesda. In this way, part of the mod community’s added value flows directly into the developer’s coffers without scaring the community away completely – because there are still free mods, and the Creation Club is optional. Other studios could take a similar approach: creating mod DLCs together with fan developers, so to speak.
• Partnerships with platforms: There are cases where developers partner with modding communities or hosting platforms. For example, CurseForge (now part of Overwolf) hosts mods for many games and shares advertising revenue with modders through a reward system. Developers can use such partnerships to ensure that mods end up on reputable ad-sharing platforms rather than dubious sites. They could also engage in sponsorship (prizes for the best mods etc.), which is indirect marketing.
• More base games sold: Even if a developer has no direct revenue share from mods, the indirect economic benefit should not be forgotten: A mod-friendly game usually sells better, especially on PC. Many players buy a game specifically because there is an active modding scene. For example, countless people bought Arma 2 just because of the DayZ mod; The Witcher 3 got more attention thanks to mods (e.g. graphics mods, gameplay mods); Cities: Skylines has outperformed SimCity in the long term thanks to thousands of mods. Every sale of the main game is revenue for the developer. Mods act like a free “DLC flood” that constantly attracts new buyers. A long tail of sales over years can be very lucrative financially – far more than could be achieved through occasional DLCs.

Other advantages of official permission: If mods are allowed, developers can also outsource support – the community fixes bugs (unofficial patches) or localizes the game (fan translations as mods). This saves costs. In addition, modding-friendliness generates good PR: the media often praise studios that involve their community. Especially when competing for attention, “our game is moddable” can be a selling point.

Conclusion: Tolerating or even promoting mods usually pays off – in the form of a longer game lifespan, greater player loyalty, free content and innovation and, in some cases, direct revenue via new monetization models. Developers should consider how to allow mods in a controlled manner in order to have the best of both worlds: Control over their own IP rights and harnessing the creative energy of fans. This is precisely why it is important to have clear contractual arrangements with modders, which is discussed in the next section.

Contractual dealings with modders: T&Cs, EULAs, modding guidelines & co.

In order to control the relationship between developers and modders, appropriate contractual regulations should be put in place. These create clear rules and avoid misunderstandings. Below are the most important documents and clauses in which modding can be regulated:

• End User License Agreement (EULA): The EULA is the contract that every player agrees to when installing/launching the game. Here the developer should specify whether modifications are permitted or not. Options range from a strict ban to conditional permission. For example, a modding-friendly EULA could contain clauses such as: “The user may modify content of the game in the context of mods and insert new content, provided that these mods remain free of charge, do not contain any illegal content and are only made available to players who own a legal copy of the game.” It is also often stated that mods may only be created for private use and that any commercial use is prohibited. It is also important to include a clause that makes it clear that modders do not acquire any rights to the original game – i.e. that the developer retains all rights to the original game. Some EULAs also contain a provision that user-created content based on the game’s IP may continue to be used by the developer. More on this in a moment under special modding agreements. If a developer does not want modding, the EULA should state this clearly (“No Modifications”). Then, in an emergency, you have a breach of contract as a basis for blocking accounts, for example.
• General Terms and Conditions (GTC) / Terms of Use: If the game is connected to online services or a platform, there are often separate terms of use. Modding-specific points can also be included here. For example, the online terms of use could stipulate that mods are only permitted in certain areas (e.g. single player mode or specially marked community servers) and that no mods may be loaded in the official online service. The rules of conduct (community guidelines) for forums/discord etc. can also regulate whether the sharing of mods is permitted. The terms and conditions for a company-owned modding hub could, for example, stipulate that when uploading a mod, the user guarantees not to infringe any third-party rights and grants the developer a license for the mod (see below).
• Special modding license or guidelines: Many studios publish their own modding guidelines as a web document or PDF. In these, they address what fans are allowed to do outside of the legal phrases. This can be very detailed: e.g. “You are allowed to create videos, screenshots and mods. You may share mods on a non-commercial basis. If we provide you with a modding SDK, its license terms apply.” Such guidelines are often not legally binding like an EULA, but in fact have the character of a one-sided declaration of tolerance. They are ideal for communicating pragmatically: What is ok, what is not? Example: Blizzard adapted its guidelines for custom games in Warcraft after the success of Dota and now points out that all mods created from its games belong to the studio or can be adopted by the studio (to avoid a “new Dota case”). Another example is the Halo Master Chief Collection: Microsoft published an FAQ on modding, which stated that everything included in the game may be used for mods – this is a very open permission via policy. Tip: Modding guidelines should also address sensitive topics: Dealing with protected brand names, prohibition of cheat tools, protection of minors (no USK18 content in mods for a USK12 game, for example), and a note that mods are used “at your own risk” (developer assumes no liability for damage caused by mods).
• Contracts with individual modders (publishing contracts): In some cases, the relationship goes beyond the community level – for example, if a developer wants to officially adopt or market a particularly successful mod. In this case, an individual contract with the modder team is recommended. This can be a license agreement or a contract for work and services, for example, which regulates which rights the modder transfers to the developer (e.g. transfer of copyrights to the mod content in return for remuneration, or granting of an exclusive right of use). If, for example, the modder is to incorporate his level design into the official game, the developer wants to ensure that he has full exploitation rights to it. Obligations should also be regulated (quality requirements, support, updates, possibly joint marketing). Such contracts are similar to DLC development contracts, but are often less complicated if the modder acts more as a freelancer. A practical example: The mod team behind Black Mesa ultimately made a deal with Valve to offer their Half-Life Total conversion as a commercial game on Steam. Valve’s rights had to be respected and certain profit shares probably had to be agreed. Bethesda also sometimes employs modders as freelance developers in the Creation Club – there are then fee agreements and acceptance conditions. As a young developer, you should be prepared: If a mod from the community is so good that you want to include it in the official portfolio, you need a watertight contract with the creator of the mod to avoid disputes about profit sharing or moral rights later on.
• Upload and platform conditions: If the developer himself provides a platform (e.g. an official mod portal or workshop in the game), then conditions also apply. When uploading a mod, users are typically asked to confirm that they do not infringe any third-party rights, that they are the creator of the mod content and – very importantly – that they grant the developer a certain license to their mod. A clause stating that the developer may host, advertise, change and remove the mod is common. Sometimes companies even demand an extensive right of use or a transfer of ownership: e.g. Blizzard declared in recent terms and conditions that all custom game content created by users (Warcraft III: Reforged) is given to the company for free use. This is intended to prevent the creation of a new hit mod in which the developer does not participate. However, one must be careful with overly aggressive demands – the modders should not feel exploited. A fair middle ground: The modder retains the copyright to their mod, but grants the developer an unlimited, free right to use the mod, to host it and use it within the game. Optionally, you could add that the developer may also use mod content in future patches or marketing, possibly with attribution to the modder (don’t forget the right to attribution § 13 UrhG – modders would like to receive credits).

Important regulatory content in brief:

• Scope of permission: Define what kind of mods are allowed (only non-commercial? only certain tools? no exe interventions?).
• Clarification of rights: Clarify that the developer IP remains with the developer and that only limited use by modders is permitted. Conversely, specify how the developer may use the mod (e.g. free integration in updates).
• Liability/warranty: Mods are third-party services – developers usually want to exclude any liability for them. So disclaimers such as “Use mods at your own risk; we do not guarantee function or harmlessness; modders may not burden our support team”.
• Content standards: Prohibition of illegal, offensive or harmful content in mods. If the game has a certain age rating, a mod should not circumvent this (e.g. a nudity mod in a USK16 game could be problematic if the mod is publicly available – this can even have consequences under youth protection law if the developer knows about it and does nothing).
• Reservation of revocation: Even if permission is granted, the developer should reserve the right to revoke permission for certain mods at any time. This allows you to intervene in individual cases if a mod does cause problems without having to give up the general modding friendliness. For example, the guidelines can state: “We reserve the right to prohibit the distribution of a mod if it violates these rules or is significantly contrary to our interests.”

Well-formulated contractual rules in the EULA and modding guidelines create a framework that is fair: modders know where they stand and the developer retains control over their product. This reduces legal uncertainties on both sides.

Effects of mods on trademark rights and licensing

In addition to copyright law, trademark law also plays a role with mods. Video game titles and the characters or logos from them are often protected as trademarks. Mods can also involve third-party brands. Here are some points that developers should bear in mind:

Use of the game trademark in the mod context: Modders will usually mention the name of the game, e.g. “Super Mod for game XYZ”. Mentioning the title XYZ is a use of the protected trademark XYZ. In principle, nominative use (i.e. to reference what the mod is for) is permitted as long as no commercial misconception arises. This means that the modder can say “Mod for Skyrim”, which falls under descriptive use – no one will think that “Skyrim” itself is behind the mod. It can become problematic if a mod has a name that blurs the boundaries, e.g. “Skyrim 2: ” – this could sound as if it were an official sequel. Developers should therefore set out in guidelines how the brand may be used: for example, “Please make it clear that your mods are unofficial and not made by us. Only use our brand names for descriptive purposes (‘Mod for XYZ’), not as the main title of your project.” This protects your brand from being diluted by mods or associated with undesirable content.

Trademark infringements by mods: If mods insert third-party trademarks (e.g. a car brand in a racing game mod, a Nike logo on virtual shoes), this can infringe trademark rights. The danger here: Brand owners could often hold the game developer jointly responsible, especially if the mods are distributed via official channels. Imagine a “Coca-Cola machine” mod for a game appears in the Steam Workshop (where the developer has a certain amount of control). Coca-Cola could comment that their brand is being used in the game without permission. Although the modder has built this in, the developer must react in order not to be considered a contributor. It is therefore advisable to clearly prohibit the use of third-party trademarks or copyrighted content in mods in the mod guidelines unless permission has been granted. Some developers also scan popular mods to identify such cases and kindly ask the modders to change them (e.g. “please remove the protected logo”). If mods are hosted externally, it is more difficult – but at least on your own platforms you should watch out for trademark infringements.

Protect your own brand: A developer should also consider that mods have an impact on the perception of their own brand. Example: If a mod for Minecraft is circulating that depicts extreme violence, the image of Minecraft as a child-friendly game could suffer. In purely legal terms, Microsoft/Mojang could argue that this mod damages the reputation of the brand – trademark law recognizes the concept of dilution or damage to the reputation of a well-known brand. However, pursuing such cases in court would be rather unusual, as it is not an official product. It is usually dealt with via community management. Nevertheless, developers should reserve the right to prohibit mods that put their brand in a bad light (e.g. a “Nazi Edition” mod with corresponding symbols). This is where trademark law, moral rights and PR aspects overlap.

Licensed content in the original game: A special point: what if the game itself is based on third-party licenses? For example: A studio is developing a game based on the Lord of the Rings series and has a license from Tolkien Enterprises. This license presumably includes the right to publish the original game – but does it allow fan mods? Often no. Licensors are often very restrictive when it comes to unexpected uses. So if a game is based on someone else’s IP, the developer must check whether they are allowed to allow mods at all. In case of doubt, it must be clarified in the license agreement with the IP owner whether user-generated content is permitted. If this is not the case, the developer must unfortunately prevent modding, because otherwise he himself is in breach of the license agreement. Example: Star Wars games generally have no mod support because Disney contractually excludes this – they want to retain control of the brand. Conversely, a developer cannot allow mods to create new stories with the protected characters, for example, if they have no rights to do so. Caution is required here: License agreements with film licenses or trademarks should ideally contain a clause stating whether or not community mods are permitted as sublicensing. If not, the developer must be open with the community as to why mods are unfortunately not possible (“due to the license terms”).

Sublicensing your own IP to modders: When developers allow mods, this de facto means that they give players a (sub)license to parts of their IP. Although it is usually not a formal license document, the EULA grant does grant permission for use. This should be clearly formulated in legal terms: “We (the creator) grant you (the modder) permission to use certain assets of our game to create your own modifications and to distribute these mods non-commercially under the following conditions…” This is a limited license to your work. This sublicense can be revoked, but until then it protects the modder from accusations of infringement. Some developers go even further and provide a modding SDK with its own license file. This then explicitly states what may be done with the included tools and assets. For example, an SDK license could say: “You may use all sample models contained in the SDK in your mods, but only in connection with our game.” This prevents the material from being used outside the intended modding community.

Trademarks of the mods themselves: If a mod becomes very well known, it can happen that modders create their own name/brand for it (e.g. “Counter-Strike” was originally a mod name and then became a brand). The developer should keep a watchful eye on this: If the modder tries to register a trademark themselves (e.g. “Dota” was used as a term by fans at the time, later Valve tried to trademark it, which Blizzard objected to), this can lead to collisions. In the Dota case, Valve and Blizzard eventually came to an agreement, but situations like this show: When mods generate their own brands, it needs to be clarified who holds the rights to them. From a developer’s point of view, it would be ideal to either secure the trademark themselves or to reach an agreement with the modder (joint use or assignment). It may seem unusual, but when a fan mod name becomes a global term, it competes with the original brand. Blizzard has learned: new guidelines therefore often state that any marks associated with mods may not be registered as a trademark without consent.

To summarize: In terms of trademark law, a developer should ensure that his trademarks are not damaged by mods or used commercially without authorization, and that third-party trademarks are avoided in mods (to prevent legal conflicts). By contractually sublicensing to modders, you grant the use of your own IP to a limited extent – this must be agreed with any third-party licensors. Ideally, developers should retain a certain say in the name and presentation of large mods in order to protect the integrity of their brand world. An open dialog with modders helps here: Many problems can be avoided by telling modders, for example, “please add ‘fan mod’ somewhere so there is no risk of confusion” – most fan developers will comply with such requests as long as the tone is right.

Mods as a basis for own content: DLCs and further development – participation of modders?

It happens time and again that a fan mod is so successful that it practically cries out for an official takeover. Developers are then faced with the question: Can we integrate these ideas or content into the game or develop them further as our own product? And if so, do we have to or should we involve the modders?

Legal situation – who owns the mod? As explained in section 1, the modder has copyrights to his own creative contributions, the developer to the original game. The mod as a complete work is not executable without the original, but the modder could still theoretically assert claims if the developer adopts content from the mod 1:1. For example: A modder writes a completely new storyline (dialog, characters) as a mod. The developer now wants to publish this story as official DLC. Although the story is based on the game, it is originally written by the modder – it is their personal intellectual creation. Under copyright law, the developer is not allowed to simply use these texts without asking the modder for permission, unless the modder has already assigned all rights in the EULA. Many EULAs actually have a clause on this: “If you submit or publish feedback, suggestions or content (e.g. mods), you grant us an unlimited right to use it.” If such a clause is effective (there are legal discussions as to whether this can be surprising or inappropriate), the developer would already have contractual permission to use the mod content. However, even then it is advisable to involve the modders for goodwill reasons.

Best practice: collaboration instead of exploitation. Successful examples show that it is wise to at least recognize or reward modders when their work is officially used:

• Valve’s approach to mods: Counter-Strike (Half-Life mod) – Valve hired the modders and turned the mod into a commercial game; Dota 2 – Valve hired the lead modder (“IceFrog”) behind the WarCraft3 mod Dota to rebuild the concept under its own umbrella; Portal – based on a student project mod (“Narbacular Drop”), Valve hired the team. This strategy brought Valve huge success. Importantly, the modders became an integral part of the development process, in some cases becoming full employees or partners. This avoids conflicts and makes use of the inventors’ expertise.
• Bethesda’s approach: Many patches and ideas from Skyrim mods found their way into official updates or the Special Edition. Bethesda did not always ask formally, but the “Unofficial Patch”, for example, was taken into account in parts. Modders were mentioned in release notes. When Bethesda started the Creation Club, they invited well-known modders to develop content in exchange for payment. This shows recognition and creates incentives.
• Bohemia Interactive & DayZ: DayZ started out as a mod for Arma 2. Bohemia supported the modder Dean Hall, who was eventually able to develop DayZ as a standalone game with Bohemia’s help – the modders thus became the official developers involved in its success.

On the other hand, there were negative examples where developers supposedly “took over” mods without credits – this led to resentment. For example, there were cases where a studio incorporated an optimization developed by fans into a patch without mentioning the modder; the community takes a critical view of this, even if it may be legally protected.

Should modders be involved (revenue/profit)? If a mod becomes a commercial product (e.g. the developer sells it as DLC or a stand-alone game), it is not only fair but also makes strategic sense to give the mod team a share. This can take the form of a one-off payment, profit sharing or employment. On the one hand, this motivates other modders (“Look, good work can pay off!”), and on the other hand, it prevents possible legal disputes. A modder who suddenly sees his work as €20 DLC in the store could otherwise consider legal action (if he still has the rights to it) or cause bad publicity. Participation doesn’t always have to be financial – sometimes credit and community fame are enough. But as soon as it comes to significant profits, fair compensation is appropriate. The example of Black Mesa shows that Valve even left all the profits to the modders – a generous gesture that was appropriate in context, because Valve had earned money from the sale of the base game Half-Life anyway and the good relationship with the community was also important.

Own further development of mod ideas: Developers may also decide to develop their own version of a popular mod idea without using the original mod code or assets. Is this ethically/legally okay? Basically yes – ideas as such are not protected. For example, if a certain gameplay mode becomes popular through a mod (e.g. survival mode), the developer may of course implement a similar mode. But you should be diplomatic here: the community often recognizes the source of inspiration. It never hurts to say in patch notes or dev blogs: “We know that the community wants feature X – mods like Y have shown how cool it is. We took inspiration from this and built an official version.” This at least gives the modders credit. This creates a feeling of collaboration rather than competition.

Contractual preparation: As mentioned in section 5, EULAs can already stipulate that the developer may freely use ideas and content from mods. This provides legal protection, but does not replace soft factors such as community relationships. It is advisable to contact modders at an early stage if you are interested in their work. Many modders are proud when their content makes it “into the official game” – as long as they are not ignored. An open offer along the lines of “We would like to use your mod as the basis for an add-on, of course we will pay you and give you credits” is usually well received.

Special case: Obligations towards modders? Does a developer have to involve modders? Legally, there is no obligation to remunerate the creator of a derivative work if you use elements of it – provided you have permission. However, if there is no permission and the developer simply takes over the mod’s own services, the modder could actually assert claims (e.g. omission or even damages). This would be a complex dispute that touches on the question: Was the mod legal in the first place? (If not, the modder would again not have a clean claim because his work was created without a license). To avoid such unclear situations, it is better to resolve them cooperatively.

Summary: Developers can benefit enormously by using successful mods as the basis for their own products or DLCs – if they are smart about it. The best approach is to get the modders on board, be it through official contracts, jobs or at least credits. This creates a win-win situation: the developer receives great content or ideas, the modder receives recognition and possibly monetary benefits, and the community sees that fan work is appreciated. This in turn increases the desire of others to mod as well. Transparent communication and fair treatment of modders is the key to creating official added value from fan content without looking like an idea thief.

Regulating the rights and use of mods and assets via blockchain technologies

A look into the future: Blockchain technology and NFTs (non-fungible tokens) are often discussed as a solution to digital ownership and licensing issues. They could also offer new opportunities in the area of mods and in-game assets. What could this look like?

Proof of ownership and authorship: A blockchain could be used to record who the creator of a specific digital asset or mod is. For example, a modder could tokenize their self-designed 3D object as an NFT. This NFT would be a unique cryptographic proof: “User A created item X.” If someone else copies the item, you could always refer to the original NFT to clarify the authorship. In practice, this does not automatically replace copyright, but it creates transparent evidence and could serve as proof in the event of a dispute (the blockchain is tamper-proof). This could create trust for modding communities: Everyone can see which asset “officially” comes from the creator (and was not stolen by freeloaders, for example).

Licensing through smart contracts: Blockchain allows the use of smart contracts – these are self-executing contracts in code form. Applied to mods: A system could be built in which mod usage rights are managed via smart contracts. For example, a mod asset as an NFT could also be linked to a smart contract that states: “If this asset is used in a game, a license fee of 1 token is automatically charged to the creator.” As soon as a developer or other user integrates the asset into their project, a transaction is triggered on the blockchain that pays the modder their fee. This would be automated license management. For complex games with many UGC contributions, such a system could simplify billing: Every use is transparently traceable, middlemen are reduced. Let’s imagine, for example, that a future sandbox game allows players to design and sell their own weapons; every resale or use could be precisely logged using blockchain, and the creator would always receive a small percentage share thanks to the smart contract (something like this is already practiced in the art NFT sector as automatic resale royalties).

Digital ownership and trading of mod assets: Currently, mods or items usually “belong” to the publisher or only exist within a game. With blockchain, players could actually gain ownership of virtual items. If, for example, a special sword from a mod is issued as an NFT, the buyer owns this NFT according to general understanding. They can sell it on external marketplaces, lend it out or even use it in other supported games. For developers, this could mean Less support effort for trades (the blockchain regulates transfer of ownership) and new ecosystems in which value is created. However, it also raises questions: If players really are the “owners” of a virtual asset, how far does their freedom extend? Are they allowed to use it without restrictions? This would have to be defined contractually and technically.

Interoperability between games: A much-vaunted advantage of blockchain NFT assets is that they could be usable across games. For example, a skin that a modder has created as an NFT could theoretically be used in different games – provided that the other games integrate the asset or read the NFT data. This is still up in the air, but some Metaverse ideas are heading in this direction. For developers, this means that if you participate in such an interoperable platform, you have to clarify licensing issues. Do I allow third-party NFTs in my game? Have I checked whether their content is license-compliant? Blockchain can show the origin, but not automatically the legality (there could also be an NFT that is actually a protected figure without permission – the token alone does not legalize this). In short: blockchain facilitates transparency, but does not replace the need to clarify rights.

Decentralized modding platforms: One can also imagine decentrally organized mod repositories that run on blockchain. Mods could be stored here (or their hashes) and distributed without a central server. This makes censorship more difficult – an advantage for modders, a potential problem for developers if an unwanted mod is circulating on such a decentralized platform. Control shifts. Some advocates see this as a positive step towards breaking up publishers’ monopolies, but from a developer’s point of view, this means a loss of control. This would be a fundamental change in the relationship: players would then really have complete control over the content they create and share, without a developer being able to easily shut it down.

Current approaches: Some companies are already experimenting with NFTs for in-game assets. Ubisoft, for example, introduced “Quartz” to make unique items in Ghost Recon tradable via blockchain. User-created items could also be added to such systems at some point. There are also start-ups working on “NFT mod marketplaces” where modders can offer their creations as NFTs. One practical advantage is the seal of authenticity – you can ensure that a mod really comes from the original author (verification via their wallet), which prevents mods from unsafe sources.

Legal challenges: However, blockchain technology also brings new legal issues: when an NFT is sold, what exactly is transferred? (Usually a certificate, but not automatically the copyright.) Players could wrongly assume that the NFT gives them full rights to the asset. Developers must therefore formulate crystal clear terms of service on how NFTs/blockchain items may be used. Data protection (blockchain transactions are public) and consumer law (irreversibility of transactions, etc.) must also be considered. In the EU, NFT trading venues must now also comply with AML/KYC rules if it is considered a financial instrument – a complicated situation that almost goes beyond the scope of a games law blog post.

Bottom line: In theory, blockchain can help to manage rights to mods and digital assets in a finely granulated manner. This could open up opportunities for developers: new revenue through transaction fees, less administrative effort for licenses, greater community participation (if players really own, they invest more in the game). However, much of this is still in its infancy. No developer is obliged to jump on this bandwagon. It is more of an additional tool in the toolbox. Anyone using it should be aware that contractual foundations are also required here – blockchain may create trust from a technical perspective, but what is permitted must be legally defined. In a few years, we could see modifiable games with an integrated NFT economy making up part of the market. For now, it’s worth keeping your eyes open as a developer: Perhaps there will soon be tools that allow you to simply build a creator royalty mechanism into your own mod marketplace via blockchain, for example.

Economic advantages of modifiable games (life cycle, community loyalty, marketing of successors)

Finally, we look again specifically at the commercial benefits that a modding-friendly approach can bring. Some aspects have already been touched on, but here we summarize why moddable games are often more commercially successful and sustainable:

• Longer life cycle = more revenue: A game that is actively played over a longer period of time generates revenue for longer. This can be direct sales of the game (newcomers buy the “old” game because it remains interesting thanks to mods) or continued microtransactions/in-game purchases, if the game has such mechanics. An example: Skyrim was released in 2011, and thanks to mods, Bethesda was able to sell the game again and again for over a decade on various platforms (Skyrim Special Edition, VR Edition, etc.), in each case with reference to mod support as a feature. Without mods, Skyrim might have disappeared from the public eye after a few years. Similarly, GTA V: Released in 2013, the single-player mods and community RP servers (which are based on mods) keep interest high – at the same time, Rockstar earns money from GTA Online, but the basic sales of GTA V also benefit because some people buy it to play on modified RP servers. Conclusion: Mods act like free updates that keep the product fresh, which extends sales over a longer period of time. This also relieves developers, as they don’t have to constantly add content themselves (which eats up resources).
• Greater community loyalty = a secure market for successors: If a studio has built up a strong modding community, it has a kind of regular customer base for future titles. Players have confidence that there will be room for creativity in the next game. Example: The Civilization series from Firaxis – known for mods – can rely on many modders switching from the old part to the new one and making mods there again, which in turn attracts normal players. The community thus carries over from one generation to the next. In addition, a mod-friendly game can serve as an introduction to a franchise: A player buys part 1 because of mods, is enthusiastic, is sure to buy part 2 as well. And the modders themselves are often the best multipliers: they hype successors in their networks (“oh, in part 2 our mods will have even more options!”). This makes it much easier to market successors. You practically already have an army of influencers (the modders) who will liven up the new title. On the other hand, there are games that have no afterburner through mods: There, the community dies down and a successor has to laboriously find new buyers again.
• User-generated content as marketing: mods often generate headlines and viral content. A crazy mod (e.g. the “Thomas the Engine” graphics mod in Skyrim or various celebrity skins in GTA) is passed around on YouTube, Twitch and gaming news. It’s free advertising for the original game. People who find this funny might try out the game for this reason alone (“I want to play with the mod, I need the game”). Extensive total conversions or fan remakes also attract media attention, which always indirectly mentions the original. Basically, the community does PR work with its creations. No advertising budget can be more authentic than enthusiastic fans creating content.
• Quality improvement at no extra cost: Some mods increase the quality or eliminate flaws (graphics overhaul, performance mods, fan patches). If the developer integrates these or at least allows them to exist, the overall quality of the product increases in the eyes of the players without the developer having to develop all these improvements themselves. Higher quality = better reviews and ratings = in turn better sales. The economic advantage here is indirect, but real.
• Potential for new products: As mentioned, mods can lead to new games (Dota, Counter-Strike, etc.). For a studio, it is economically cheaper to use a mod as a template than to start from scratch because a fan base and a tested concept already exist. Some of the big hits of recent decades were originally mods – companies that recognized these trends early on and involved the modders were able to tap into new sources of revenue that would otherwise have passed them by. It’s like outsourcing R&D: modders experiment for free; when something works, the developer invests specifically and monetizes it.
• Increased sales of DLCs through an active player base: Players who stay with the game longer thanks to mods are also more inclined to buy official DLCs and add-ons. After all, anyone who has invested hundreds of hours in modded gameplay has proven to be interested in the game – when official extra content is released, they are more likely to pick it up than someone who has stopped after 10 hours. The mods act as a bridge that keeps players “on board” until the next official monetization point.
• Competitive advantage over rivals: In genres where two similar games are competing, the moddability aspect can be decisive. For example, Skylines vs SimCity: Skylines (Paradox) relied heavily on Steam Workshop mods – the game gained enormous depth through thousands of buildings and traffic mods, which SimCity did not have. Result: Skylines outperformed SimCity both financially and in terms of reputation. Another example: Mount & Blade was technically simple, but very open to mods; this created a huge community and the game sold far beyond expectations. Competitors without mods remained niches. As a developer, you can therefore position yourself better in the market if you actively advertise with the modding community (“with us you can freely design your experience”). Word gets around and becomes a selection criterion for many buyers.

Of course, there are also trade-offs: Implementing modding capability costs initial development time (you may have to publish tools, document code, provide interfaces). One could argue that these resources could also generate revenue elsewhere. However, especially in the PC sector, it has been shown that investments in modding support often pay off many times over time. In addition, it may reduce sales of certain DLCs if free mods offer something similar – but many companies are relaxed about this because mods are usually specific and not as “polished” as official DLCs, and fans often take both. The biggest risks with mods (e.g. cheating or IP problems) can be limited by clever strategy, as we have seen.

Conclusion: Overall, modifiable games offer considerable economic opportunities. Longer life cycles, strong communities and better marketing opportunities usually outweigh the potential negative effects. In times when customer acquisition costs are rising (lots of advertising required, high expectations of constant new content), it is smart to harness the energy of the community. Players are thus transformed from consumers into co-creators – which increases their loyalty and relieves the developer of financial and creative burdens.

Conclusion: Finding a balance between control and creativity

Modding and user-generated content are caught between developer interests and fan creativity. Legally, the developer in Germany clearly holds the reins: thanks to copyright and trademark law, they can determine what happens to their game. But the trick is to exercise this right in a strategically clever way. Instead of seeing mods as a blanket threat, it is worth recognizing their advantages. A well-considered modding policy – anchored in the EULA/AGB and accompanied by open guidelines – enables a fair balance of interests: the developer’s rights are protected, while players are left room for innovation and creative development.

Aggressive crackdowns should be the exception for real problem cases so as not to cause damage through community backlash. Instead, developers can create a vibrant ecosystem through tolerance or targeted promotion of mods, which benefits the game and the studio in the long term. Real-life examples (from Minecraft to Skyrim to GTA) show that this culture can take a game to the next level – whether in terms of public perception or sales.

For young developers in Germany, the key is to get to grips with the legal foundations (copyright, contracts, licenses) at an early stage in order to then make a conscious decision: Where do we stand on modding? Experience has shown that an open but regulated approach is the most successful. If modders know where they stand and feel respected, they will create amazing content that benefits everyone. And in the end, an enthusiastic player who mods is usually also a satisfied customer – and the best multiplier you could wish for.