Botdra

I'd like to avoid a "dislike" button, personally. As stated early by several people there's no point to it, it adds nothing to a conversation. I think it would be fairly easy to argue that it would be detrimental.

The "like" feature is one I'm indifferent about. Although it also adds nothing to a conversation, it is a nice and easy way to say "good job" or acknowledge a post without having to quote a bunch of them etc. I don't much care either way to be honest, but a dislike button would just be a bad idea.

Oh man, I hadn't heard about the Mass Effect "controversy". I think Geoff did a good job of defending it and I'm glad he was on. I never expect anyone from the industry to be involved in any news reports, it's usually just some psychologist or "expert" who has never played a video game or doesn't even have kids who play video games.

 

I also find it funny that some clearly haven't graduated yet.

Sport (or sports) is all forms of competitive physical activity ,which through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills.
Now tell me again how, sitting down, usually drinking and eating at the same time, staring at a screen for 30minutes - 3 hours, is physical activity? How do you improve?

Video games may not be useless, though. But what you can learn from playing video games, you can also learn by reading books. Which is far more better for human eyes.
Electronic-Sports is a rather new development, and an accepted word in dictionary, however it can obviously be misunderstood by gamers themselves, as if they were athletics.
If you're driving a car, you're a driver. If you're flying a plane you're a pilot. If you do sports (you're physically active) then you're athletic. If you sit down and play video games,


                         y  o  u      a  r  e      n  o  t      a  t  h  l  e  t  i  c
                                                                since  you  defend  "electronic- sports" -- would  you  call  yourself  electronic-athletic ??
 

You need to calm down. There is really no need for insults here, especially insulting one's intelligence when it seems you have missed the point of the previous posts.

You have clearly not read my post properly, or anyone's posts here considering you still think some people in this thread are saying video games and traditional sports the same thing. I never once said they were the same as sports, I said they are similar and gave you many reasons as to why they are similar, even stating their major difference of the level of physical activity, but you continue to argue blindly.

Sure books are easier on the eyes for most people, but research shows that learning by doing is much more effective than learning by being told, either in person or in writing. You say games "may not be useless" as if they don't already have some use... clearly you're here because you also play video games and see their use. Rather hypocritical, don't you think? I don't think I need to argue that video games have a purpose at this point.

Keep in mind we are in a changing world. We're currently knocking on the door of virtual reality with things like VR headsets becoming mainstream, the more interactive the games become the more the term "sport" will change and become a gray area. Eventually we'll have different terms for things as well. Currently all the gamers I know who compete call themselves "professional gamers" or "competitive gamers" since they are in a position of winning money for their skills in video games, like athletes win money for their skills in other activities.

You seem to be very upset about an issue that no one here is on the other side of. Why is this such an important issue to you that video games not be called sports? Why do you take it so personally and get so irrationally irritated?

Are you seriously saying that gaming is sports? 

No one is saying it's the same as sports, but it's certainly similar. I wouldn't want to see League of Legends battles on ESPN either, but I wouldn't be against a new channel dedicated to competitive gaming. I mean really, what's the biggest difference? The playing field. Other than that, they are both still enjoyable for the spectators, they get to see skilled players in a specific arena, there are tournaments, huge prizes, you can play with your friends, place bets on it if that's your thing, etc.

Mind you, chess is technically considered a sport internationally, despite the definition of sport typically involving some sort of physical activity on a level of mild exercise or more. Poker is on ESPN too, that's not much of a "sport" by that description, and yet people still pay to watch it and pay to play it.

Regarding feminism, I don't think it was so much "this is a feminist issue" as much as the girl in the video was saying she quit online gameplay because this was the straw that broke the camels back when it comes to misogyny in online gaming, for her personally. I don't think anyone can deny just how much more rude, offensive, and misogynistic people are in online games, especially in games like Call of Duty, GTA, the big - for lack of a better word - "bro" games. I think the news report is more responsible for making it look like a general feminist issue. But to be honest, I wouldn't say it isn't a feminist issue really. I can't say I've played more than 20 minutes of online games without someone saying something misogynistic. That definitely doesn't represent the majority of gamers, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem too.

Hah, incredible. Don't get me wrong, I think there's a difference between athleticism and skills involved in video games, but someone needs a vacation.

Clearly you would not have written this sarcastic and bitter line if you had felt apathy towards whatever people say on tv. 

Because I think it's laughable, not rage inducing. You're welcome to think whatever you want, I don't really care either way.

Did you really just now take offence over someone saying something stupid about modders on tv?

 

EDIT: I'm not trying to rile you, but given the fact that the gaming industry is rivalring (if not already bigger) than the film industry and given that even espn is running special programmes on esport, there is no need to justify ourselves to anyone at all anymore.

I think you're severely overestimating the impact this report had on me. I think it's a point of conversation.

@@IrocJeff: Fair point, but to most people who watch the news a hacker is just a criminal, and modders are apparently the same as criminals.

http://dudecomedy.com/girl-claims-she-was-virtually-raped-in-gta-v/

"These hackers, also known as modders."

Oh sorry, I didn't realize people who modify and create original content for games they love were on the same page as people who spend their time stealing files from the FBI.

The media being ignorant about gamers and gaming isn't anything new, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

Tried to find out if this was a joke or a hoax since the site makes it look that way, but unfortunately it seems to be legitimate.

You don't seem to be understanding what I mean when I say conflict of interests. When you have a conflict of interests, you will be working on some hobby for money that may interfere with your work, or alternatively you will be doing fuckall at your office and instead working on your project instead of what you're supposed to be doing at work. This is why you're meant to disclose this sort of information in yearly paperwork, and failing to do so may result in termination. This is incredibly common.

 

Under Valve's system, if you make $10, you aren't entitled to any of the funds. Your mod needs to have made over $400 before you'll see a dime of it. Which makes the problem even worse.

 

Even out of Valve's system, people who are making mods professionally may undercut the people who are working on mods in their spare time as a free hobby. For Skyrim modding, this isn't even about quality, strictly speaking. Some people who would be doing these mods professionally may devote their time to make sure that their mod is compatible with a zillion other things.

 

And hey, there's always mod piracy to worry about.

 

 

What did that have to do with what I just said? :x

 

 

What.

 

Also, music is a bad analogy here for various reasons.

 

 

False.

 

 

And you missed mine. The point is that once you release a mod, it more often than not becomes the property of the original developer of the game. This is why Blizzard took Valve to court over Dota 2 (They settled out of court)

 

 

I never said that it wasn't. The fact that you point this out only bolsters my argument. Killing Floor was made by people who are passionate for their work, just like developers of Grand Theft Auto. For every one good game on Steam, there's about ten that are shovelware/YouTube-bait Early Access games. Interested in picking up Domestic Dog Simulator? I know I'm not.

 

 

Except that it did. For quite a few mod-makers, including the devs of SkyUI, which is in use by hundreds if not thousands of mods for Skyrim and was previously for free until the for-pay Steam Workshop came out, this became a reality and tore the modding community for that game apart in the span of a day.

 

Anyway, my point is that with for-profit mods, you now open the floodgates for the people who are in it for the money and not the passion. If all mods were free, the people who are in it for the money would simply not exist, because there's no money to be made. I'm not saying that all people who mod for the game are going to become money-hungry, I'm saying that people who are money-hungry now have a new means to acquire their precious wealth in the form of mods. I don't speak for everyone here, but I can just say No thanks to that.

 

 

I've already provided examples that prove this.

 

Name me one tech company that doesn't have a contract like this.

 

Anyway, I do agree that Steam's handling was bad. If they're going to do a paid mods experiment, it ought to be performed on a new game, as opposed to one which has been out for almost 4 years now.

Perhaps you're right, maybe I don't understand what you mean by conflict of interest. Yes, if you're working on a hobby that conflicts with your work it is a conflict of interest. However, you can still work on something as a hobby and have it NOT be a conflict of interest despite it being in the same field as your 9-5. It's scenario specific. If I work on a 2D platformer from 9-5 and then go home and make better textures for Quake 3 in my spare time how is that an automatic conflict of interest? It isn't. If I stayed up late doing them and showed up to work late the next day, sure. But if I don't, then what's the issue? Being a ghost writer 9-5 and then writing my own music in my spare time isn't automatically a conflict of interest. It's entirely dependent on the scenario.

Again, no point in me addressing shots at Valve's system because I'm not arguing for it.

Regarding the music analogy: it didn't use to be an accepted idea to have to pay to see a concert. People just made music together as part of their culture, and if you were there you heard it and if you weren't then you didn't. Introducing the idea of "Hey, here's something creative that people do, maybe we should allow them to make money off of it" didn't kill music. No reason it would be entirely and automatically detrimental to video games either.

Great Wikipedia article, but you're arguing about musical terminology with the wrong person. To a normal person a cover can be a reinterpretation, legally it is not. The phrase has been used and misused forever. According to actual law they are not the same thing, despite it being generally accepted by people who aren't in the music business to be a "cover". Play an exact recreation of a song, then play your own arrangement of it and see if the legal consequences are the same. Copyright law, performance royalties, you name it. It's very different depending on what you do with the song. If you file a recording as a "cover" and not an "arrangement" or "orchestration" with a government body you better damn well be sure it's played note for note. It's part of my job to know and enforce these things.

I see your point, and again simply state that this is all based off of our current system. Implementing a system where you pay for mods would also require cooperation from the developers regarding rights. No one is disputing that. Again, I merely started by saying "I hope we find a system that works". I fully acknowledge that we don't have one. That's the point.

So there's lots of garbage out there, great. So what? What is the long term impact of people making bad games? If they're bad, people won't buy them. Same with the iPhone apps that cost $1,000 that do absolutely nothing. People don't buy them, and if they do just for the sake of creating a cool story, they are more than welcome to. I doubt anyone with that kind of money is taking away from the video game economy. Like you said, Domestic Dog Simulator is rubbish and you're not going to buy it. Do you really think the creator will continue to make sequels if no one is buying it? And even if they were so passionate about it that they made sequels every month for 15 years so what? People will always make garbage. But a garbage product won't sell, so why does it matter?

Putting a price tag on something that you've put immense amounts of time and work into is not the same thing as losing all passion for a project, a good individual becoming a corrupt menace, and just going for the cheapest, easiest way to make as much money as possible. Lots of time and energy was put into that project, and now all of a suddenly their exploiting people by asking for money? If I release a decent game that I put months of work into for free and then go "I think I'd like to get paid for my hard work and dedication" I think that's fair. Is it kinda inconvenient and a pain? Yeah. Is it smart? Not particularly. Does it make me a bad person who will from that moment on only create video games for the sake of making a quick buck? Of course not.

Charging money for mods absolutely does open the doors for more greedy, cash-hungry morons. Yes. But if they make a great product, who cares? And if they make a terrible product, who cares? If they only churn out garbage they'll fall by the wayside. Our issue then becomes what, one of it being marginally more difficult to find that indie game on Steam that you heard about?

And again, I can't name a company that doesn't have a contract like this. That comes back to my point of "This is another factor that would need to be looked it if we created a new system for paid mods."

I'm not saying all mods should be paid. I'm simply saying adopting a Bandcamp approach (where it can be free, by donation or a set price) shouldn't be something we all turn our noses up at. If done right, it can benefit those who are actually good at what they do.

Actually, it can be a major legal sticking point, especially in the technical fields.  Most tech industries, Telecom, Game Devs, Software Devs, IT/Security firms, Industrial/Production, are very very picky about what you do outside of your employment with them, I know from experience.  They don't care about the time you spend doing it, but they do want you to stay the hell out of the same industry.  ("Trade secrets and other nonsense")

Great, but if you're not held to a contract like that then my point still stands.

And if that's the case then that's just another factor we should be looking at when talking about how implementing mod sales would work.

 

If you're currently employed, I'm sure your boss wouldn't approve of you making money from a second hobby. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

I've had to fill out several bits of paperwork before regarding this. Generally speaking, if I was working as a programmer for say, Microsoft, and I developed for-pay mods for Skyrim as a hobby, this is a conflict of interest and they would most likely ask me to stop doing this or be dismissed. When I was interviewed by Raven Software, they mentioned that I would probably need to be devoted to projects 24/7 and modding wouldn't be a good idea.

Each situation is different though, making and selling mods isn't a conflict of interest just because you have another job in the industry, it is entirely dependent on what that job is. If you work 9-5 and do your job, what you do outside of that time doesn't matter as long as it doesn't conflict. Doing the same job in multiple ways or through multiple means isn't a conflict of interest. If it clashes with your main job legally (meaning the company is forcing you to only work for them or something) then that's a different story. But if you're not bound by that, and it doesn't take away from the company you work 905 for, then there's no reason not to. If I'm hired to work as a producer for a studio and I need to work x hours a week, it's not a conflict of interest for me to pick up other projects outside of my job as long as I am still fulfilling x amount of hours per week. I'd even say there's opportunity for bringing attention to your 9-5 job. If someone is known for making fantastic mods, what's to stop them from going "Like my stuff? Check out this game I'm working on." Works for other creative industries quite well.

And hey, if you're not employed then paid mods give you the ability to develop your skills while still gaining a little bit of income. Not enough to pay the rent, but if 10 people buy your $1 model, that's a meal or two.

Also worth mentioning: several universities have policies that state that if you develop something while at their school, then the university owns the intellectual properties rights and therefore a share of the profits. Mine does.

 

I think you've kinda contradicted yourself there/missed the point of what I was trying to say. Mods are frequently developed out of passion for the game, and not strictly speaking for income. Whether or not they are for-pay, they still have an impact on your resumé regardless.

That's my point as well. Making mods for-pay doesn't automatically change the quality or outcome of the mod. So, rather than doing it and getting next to nothing in return, why not be compensated for them?

Sure. But it's not a 1:1 comparison at all. Musicians don't spend 40 hours a week in a studio or at a game development place like programmers or 3d modellers do. Many of them work freelance, are licensed (Hotline: Miami comes to mind) or serve other roles besides strictly musician, like sound engineering in general. I can't think of any fulltime sound designers/musicians for video game studios that have put out a for-pay album, aside from Simon Viklund, who put out a single song earlier this year for $1. And it's the only work by him that's like that.

 

All I'm saying is that this is stuff that's normally done as a hobby. Introducing money to the equation introduces problems.

Of course it introduces problems, it's a major change. Doesn't mean it's not worth going to work and trying to create a system where paid mods works. You didn't used to pay to hear music either, but here we are. As screwed up as the music industry is (like most creative industries) paying to hear live music certainly isn't a big issue.

A shitty Wonderwall cover is based on an original song and introduces your own elements. A Skyrim mod is based on an original game and introduces your own elements.

Am I saying that selling a really good sword for $1.00 is a bad thing? Not really. It doesn't even strictly matter if it's a Master Sword model in this case. If it were to stand out on its own, it would be provided as a raw model format with textures meant for commercial use, and not wrapped up in a BSA/ESP specifically for the use in Skyrim.

And, for bonus cookies, putting something up on Steam Workshop/making it for Skyrim means that Valve/Bethesda now owns the rights to it as per the paid mods TOS/EULA, and you don't. If someone were to export that sword in a different format and put a $200 price tag on it on Polycount, there's exactly jack shit you can do about it because you can't enforce a DCMA notice on something you no longer own.

These legal issues are one of the things that I mention as being introduced when money is introduced.

I think you're unclear of the terminology. A cover is an exact replication. If you're adding instruments, changing parts, changing time signatures, changing styles, that's no longer a cover but rather and arrangement and would have some element of original content. Legally it's a very different beast.

I acknowledge all of those issues, but you're missing my point. You're assuming I condone Steam's implementation of paid mods, and I don't. But a lot of those issues are very clear and very fixable. I think it would be completely possible to put together a system that fixes the majority of these issues.

And the same can be said in the other direction. The vast majority of stuff in mobile marketplaces and even some of the stuff on the paid Skyrim market (no joke, there was a mod titled "Just Give Me Money") are just cheap cash-ins/shovelware designed to line their developers' wallets with cash. That's not a hobby or a side thing to get you money. There's no passion there. If you truly love something, you don't care about the money. Profits don't drive inspiration, creativity does. Don't believe me? Compare something like Killing Floor, which, btw, started out as a free mod, to something like Call of Duty, which is produced on a yearly basis strictly for profits. KF2 is coming out soon (currently in Early Access) and has comparable playerbase statistics to Grand Theft Auto V on PC already.

Every creative industry has people who are in it for the money and not for the passion. Your point? GTAV was clearly made by people who were passionate about making a great product and it's one of the highest rated and best-selling games of all time. If you're passionate about games then money isn't going to make you go "Oh well screw passion then, what's the quickest way to make a buck in this industry that I've loved for so many years and now wish to exploit?" If you're argument here is that money means more bad products and less good products that's just not the case.

 

You can produce a model or piece of music and sell it, even if it was originally designed as a mod for another game. I'm not saying that you don't deserve compensation or that your work doesn't deserve validation or warm fuzzy feelings or something else to make you feel good if it just so happens that it turns out to be a quality piece of work. I'm also not saying that you don't have a right to charge money for it, this is ultimately up to the publishers who may impose a restriction on your paid mod. This is a bit of a red herring, so to speak. My point is that creating a culture of paid mod development and getting the original game developers involved reeks of:

1. Exploitation. Now instead of the game developers making paid DLC, modders get to make it and they only get 25% of the revenue!
2. Needless competition. If something is the best/really good and is free, why compete? If there's already a really good Anakin skin that you like, why would there need to be another version? If we're talking a paid market here, you'll want to make your own and get a slice of that market. Modding is no longer done for the fun and promoting good vibes, but instead is a cut-throat market.

I agree, but only if we work with Steam's system. It is not the only way to implement paid mods. Just because Steam screwed the pooch on their first try doesn't mean that it's a bad idea for paid mods to become acceptable. All your points are based off of Steam's model, and yet we have several other industries showing how this can work just fine. The issue isn't paid mods, the issue is how they were implemented in this scenario.

In essence my entire argument is simply this: paid mods isn't a bad idea. Steam's implementation of paid mods is a bad idea.

I became annoyed that nobody ever made some Lord Of The Rings models for jka, why is that?

People kept making those stupid 'nonsense' models that nobody cared about.

Yea, I knew about that TC mod, and I got very pissed when I saw that they stopped the project.

And again, I don't need the useless human models.

You're... passionate about this, huh?

You'll have better luck if you rename this thread to "Dwarf model" instead of just "LOTR models" then, as that seems much less daunting and way more specific, it'll get more attention. On top of that I'd suggest posting reference pictures in your first post so people know exactly what you're looking for. If they can see it and don't have to search for references themselves then there's a higher chance of someone picking it up.

High quality recreations of base JA content.

A man after my own heart. Nice stuff man.

Nice work. My suggestions would be to make them more blue than green and add some scan lines, noise, or other digital artifacts to make them look more like holograms. At this point they look more like ghosts or spirits to me.

http://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/221100/

They're already here...

Not the same thing though, as something that started as a mod is now a standalone game. The mod for Arma II is still free, the standalone game is not. Plus I'm not talking about this, I'm talking about when developers will actually encourage the production and sale of mods for their own games. There's always a few examples here and there, but it's still not a very mainstream thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Several mod communities already have systems like these (Sims 3 comes to mind). I like to think that modding should be a hobby, but if you're inclined to make money off of it, there are better options in terms of careers. I think that introducing money might introduce unwanted competition or cheap cash-ins like we've already seen with Skyrim. I'm not saying that mod-makers don't deserve any money, but it would be better to have just straight-up donations or to be doing this sort of thing for fun, not for profit. Modding is more of a hobby than a professional career. I like to make the comparison that modding is like jamming out with your friends to covers of existing songs, whereas game development is like actually making albums and selling out concerts.

Then again, there are some quality mods which are most deserving of cash. I don't play Skyrim, but I play New Vegas and the scene is very similar (some of the same tools are used, even). I would be willing to pay up front for a mod like Tale of Two Wastelands or WMX. That being said, I think the intrinsic value of doing these mods for fun often produces higher-quality content if you ask me.

 

DayZ went on to produce a standalone game. This is not the same thing.

I disagree.

I think you're missing the point. Selling mods isn't about making a long-term career choice, it's about finding another opportunity to gain income in a field you work in and enjoy. It doesn't need to sustain your entire life to be justified. If it provides income then it's simply PART of their career as game designers/modders/digital content developers, whatever you want to call them.

The vast majority of "successful" musicians for example do not do one thing, because they can't support themselves on one thing. They make music, they play shows, but they also teach music lessons, or work at a music school, or create music related YouTube videos, or write articles for music related websites, or compose for video games, or engineer/produce other musicians, etc. If you're wanting to be involved in the video game industry as a career, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to create mods on the side and sell them for set prices if you so choose.

Your comparison to jamming and playing covers doesn't make any sense. If I create a completely original sword design in a modeling program, texture it, etc. that is an original creation. Playing a shitty version of Wonderwall with your friends is not even close to the same thing as an original creation. A shitty Wonderwall cover is more on par with making a half-assed, kinda glitchy, and not very accurate model of the Master Sword (something NOT original) to use in Skyrim.

Doing something for free doesn't mean it's going to be better. At the end of the day people don't pay for crap, they pay for quality. Art hasn't gotten worse because people started paying for it. I would argue it drives people to produce unique, quality creative works. There's always awful games that cost $60 and fantastic games that are free. The price tag doesn't change the overall quality of an entire industry. Just because you're charging money for something doesn't mean you didn't create it for fun, they are in no way mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day it's simple - if I've created original content (like music, a piece of art, a piece of furniture, whatever it is) then I have a right to charge money for it. The idea that it's okay for artists and musicians but not okay for people in the video game industry makes zero sense to me.

Hopefully one day we can see a system where you are allowed to sell mods. I think if you spend this much time on developing something creatively, you should be able to monetize it in some way, like an artist or musician would. This definitely wasn't the way to do it...

@@Botdra 45% for Bethesda, 30% for Valve. fxd

 

And this model is a complete bullshit. Especially that modding could be supported with donations, but not with actual payment for a free modifications that were made by fans of the game to support it and bring some own ideas to it.

 

And now we have a Dota 2 sword in Top Sellers with 700+ subs, Jez Christ.

Those cuts aren't much better.

It's not bullshit. Again, look at that model in other creative professions. Could musicians make a career on optional donations alone? Artists? Cinematographers? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Seriously, this is a fantastic idea with horrible implementation. If you're great at modeling but can't get a job with a big game company or don't want to, this is a great way to still generate income off of your skills.

My only issue with it is the 75% cut for Valve. Sure, up to 25% I can understand. But Valve didn't make the model, why should they get the majority of the profits?

@@Onysfx: You need to look at this from the view of other professions. Should art be sold "by donation"? Should music? Should sculpting? Should woodworking? Creative arts being limited to working for free or by donation isn't exactly the key to a thriving career in that field. You could sell a few steam cards and have $1.29 for a mod.

Short of making a ton of models and assets for an actual game, there isn't really a way for modelers, map makers etc. to make money. Other creative professions have much easier ways of making money, so it's good that game design has that opportunity now too.

This is... interesting. If they've obtained permission from the publisher of the game(s) in question, and they are regulating the use of other people's resources, and the use of recreating content from other games, then I think this is a really great idea.

http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/aboutpaidcontent/

 

Yup, I had planned on using these. Thanks for the permission.

Are you going to make some for JK2 as well?

No worries.

Circa beat me too it. I had a lot of people ask me to do it but I just never got around to it, luckily Circa had my back haha.

The only reason I have 30 hours on Call of Duty: Black Ops - Multiplayer is because of bots. If Battlefront didn't have them all hope would be lost.

I think the fact that the prequels still felt like Star Wars films goes to show that it's not about the characters. Yes Luke's storyline was essential in the original trilogy, and Anakin's story was essential in the prequels, but you try writing a story without a main character. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy all the characters thoroughly, I just don't think it's been as much about the characters as it has been the story and the universe. Their stories are important, their growth as people outside of that? Not so much.

Hm... I actually disagree with that. The original trilogy movies had great character development, as well as storytelling, which is what makes them stand out from the prequels so much, and some of The Clone Wars (2008) TV series has also managed to re-capture that, especially towards the end -- which is why I love it so much.

 

I would expect something similar to the Star Trek reboot with the new Star Wars movies, as well. It'll be good Hollywood fun, but I'm not sure if it will stand the test of time as the original saga did.

Yeah, I'm just talking about the movies, not other content. The characters did change because of events, but it was never about the characters, it was about the story. Characters did change and grow to a certain extent, but I never felt Star Wars was about the characters.

I think Star Trek was fantastic. But it wasn't Star Wars, meaning it wasn't the 7th installment in an iconic saga. It was a self-contained reboot. And that movie was Hollywood as hell, which worked for it I think, but wouldn't work for Star Wars, in my opinion. Star Wars isn't known for it's character development either really, which is fine by me, it's still great.

Depends who you buy from. I hear good things about RetroUSB. A guy I know who runs a popular YouTube video game channel has a lot of their stuff and it worked perfectly during his live shows so they must be fairly good at least. They make adapters and controllers I believe.