Crytek Pressures Modder to Remove Crysis Photomode Mod

Crysis Remastered

Yesterday, well-known game mod developer, Frans Bouma posted a screenshot of an email sent from the PR department of Crysis developer, Crytek.

The email states that modifications to the game, breaches the terms of service set out in the Crysis EULA. The Crytek PR team is using these grounds to demand a cease and desist of the ‘mod’ that is being hosted on Frans’ Patreon page.

Frans is an avid member of the modding community, developing tools for a variety of games to allow players to better express themselves when taking in-game screenshots. His “photomode” tools unlock the game’s default camera perspective and add new lighting effects that can be toggled on for added style.

Response from Frans and the community

Frans states in his post that none of game’s assets nor code has been used in the software he created. The significance of this statement is that he is trying to assert that no intellectual property infringement has taken place since he has not repurposed nor reused any of the existing work done by Crytek; everything he has done is 100% original.

Despite this, he has since taken down the mod and made an official statement of the matter on his Patreon page. He has further disavowed Crytek, stating that he will never make a photomode mod for any future Crytek games.

The reaction from the gaming community has been overall negative, as the mods did not seem to fall under the purview of cheating and tool-assisted gameplay and instead benefitted the game’s content creation scene. Given that the extent of the mod was just to help take photos, something entirely removed from shooting and movement which formed the core gameplay, this move seems baffling to fans of the games.

However as a few users have pointed out, this mod was only accessible if you were a subscriber to Frans’ Patreon, which means that he was gaining monetary benefit from the modification.

It is because of this aspect, the usual precedent for game modification does not apply and gave rise to Crytek’s claim.

Legal Issues

After reading through the EULA that Crytek PR quoted in the email to Frans, I found that there is a clear section that states that the use of any modification is unauthorised.

Commenters note that the EULA does not cover Frans’ software since it does not “give you an advantage in any game mode” or “interfere with the outcome and/or the course of the gameplay”. Since the software was not for the purposes of cheating, they believed that Crytek should have no grounds.

The section also states that you are also restricted from creating any derivative work. The original intent of this section most likely prevents users from using third party software to either extract game assets to use elsewhere or repurpose the game into an entirely new game.

Again, given that no such extraction and manipulation has taken place, supporters of Frans believe that the claim would fail on these grounds as well.

The issue is that arguments can be made in opposition of the above. Although the photomode mod is made with original code, it functions by changing the function of the in-game camera, which can be construed as “interfering with gameplay”. Furthermore, the images the mod produces can be interpreted as artistic in nature, therefore they may be considered works of art that derive from the in-game engine.

Combined with the payments that Frans would receive from the mods in relation to his Patreon, the studio could argue that Frans is profiting off the work Crytek has done.

But just because Crytek has the grounds to sue, does that mean they should?

Just Because You Could, Does Not Mean You Should

In my opinion, mods are a sign of a healthy community in gaming. If your game has a vibrant modding community, it means you have created something has captured the hearts of the players, ensuring that even if you cease to support your game, the community will find and create ways to continue their engagement.

Games like Fallout: New Vegas, Left 4 Dead 2, Torchlight and The Darkest Dungeon have vibrant playerbases despite their age. One may argue that it is because of their replay value stemming from excellent game design, but attributing an entire decade of community upkeep to that alone is perhaps overestimating that aspect.

These games have active modding communities that add fresh content or visual upgrades that change the way you experience these games every time you press “start”.

Courtesy of Steamcharts.com. Going strong despite a decade of age.

However, it is undeniable that modifications tread on legal grey area when it comes to changing game files. The aforementioned games never had innate mod support. Yet, when given the opportunity to compel “modders” to cease and desist, they chose not to.

As a result these games have had lifespans far beyond the original projections of the development teams behind them, with new players still joining the ranks as they know fun is to be found even after all these years.

With this hard line stance towards modification, Crytek has perhaps extinguished what little goodwill remained in the Crysis community and is stifling their community growth by setting a dangerous precedent.

Whilst I understand that copyright must be upheld in order to maintain protection over properties, battles must be chosen wisely.

By foregoing the right to pursue legal action against Frans, it was unlikely that bodies governing intellectual property would suddenly take that as intent to relinquish all protection. A better decision would have been to request the removal of the payment requirement to access the mod and establish proper game mod support.

From this move, Crytek had gained very little benefit and has incurred a PR disaster. Ironic, given the job description of original sender of the email.

Do you agree with Crytek or Frans? Should game companies always allow non-cheat mods in their game? What do you think about the situation? Go wild with your thoughts in the comment box!