CHOSEN


“Studios, creators, and communities can thrive when collaboration is well-governed, and that’s not a pipedream” – so says Chosen’s Founder and CEO, Victor Folmann


M


odding has long been a defining thread in gaming culture, layering new experiences onto existing titles. For something supremely popular, it sits in a strange space


between creative freedom and legal constraint. For creators and communities, modding opens up new


possibilities, but it also raises questions around what’s allowed. For studios and publishers, this creativity builds engagement and longevity but requires careful handling of IP. Many publishers acknowledge this delicate balance, supporting modding while setting clear boundaries. This needs to be the standard across the industry.


THE HARDEST PART IS LEGIBILITY There are two ways to think about the challenges of creating a modding ecosystem where everyone benefits. The easy thing to do is to attribute creative constraints to legal hullabaloo and take things as they come. The more difficult path would require you to call a spade a spade and tackle the issue of legibility. Most studios don’t have clear modding policies, which leaves


creators operating in ambiguity and platforms making constant judgement calls. Creators can spend hundreds of hours developing work in good faith only to later discover it conflicts with terms buried deep in documentation. When studios speak in a language creators understand upfront,


trusted parameters guide creation without working against it. Platforms can help surface these limits, but they’re not legal advisors. It’s a gap that studios can step into more actively.


THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING The games where modding thrives long-term (think Skyrim, Minecraft, and Stardew Valley) all have either explicit studio blessing or consistent de facto tolerance. When creators trust the rules won’t shift arbitrarily, they invest deeply. The strongest case for proactive engagement comes from mods evolving into standalone, commercially successful games. Valve didn’t just “allow” Counter-Strike to exist but worked with its creators to make it into a flagship title. When a mod grows large enough to stand on its own, studios


face a choice: collaborate or contest. Those that collaborate often end up with billion-dollar franchises and extended game lifecycles. Those that litigate risk losing both the opportunity and community goodwill.


Standardised modding


frameworks could be transformative. Clear guidance from publishers gives creators confidence to explore within known boundaries, without unintended infringement. Right now, studios still reinvent the wheel, and smaller developers often lack the legal resources to do it properly.


COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE CARRIES SIGNAL Surveys can’t match what player behaviour reveals. How players engage with mods shows what they value and what the game lacks. While community enthusiasm doesn’t make a mod legally permissible, it’s a strong signal of unmet demand. Clear modding standards give studios a foundation for decision-


making, but they need to be applied within context, beyond asset use to what they enable. Yes, studios always make the final call on a game’s integrity, but the aim is to reflect community behaviour, not trade standards for interpretation. Platforms like Nexus Mods sit in the middle, setting boundaries to


protect legitimate IP while having ongoing conversations with studios about what’s acceptable before issues arise. Healthiest outcomes start with early conversations where studios clarify what works for them. Bethesda is a strong example: Skyrim still ranks among the most active titles, more than a decade on – a sign of a healthy ecosystem working as intended.


MODDING IS NOT A THREAT, BUT AN UNPAID R&D DEPARTMENT AND A LOYALTY MACHINE ROLLED INTO ONE Creativity and ownership don’t need to exist in opposition. The studios that have figured that out are the ones with the longest-lived franchises. When the system works, everyone benefits.


May/June 2026 MCV/DEVELOP | 27


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56