The early access release of Bethesda’s much-anticipated game Starfield has become a crucible for the age-old debate of paid mods, thanks to a contentious decision by well-known modder PureDark.
Starfield originally launched with exclusive support for AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution 2, snubbing Nvidia’s popular Deep Learning Super Sampling technology.
PureDark, a modder with a history of integrating DLSS into games, released a mod for Starfield enabling Nvidia’s DLSS 2, improving game performance. But the modder locked a more advanced DLSS 3 version behind a $5 monthly Patreon subscription, along with Digital Rights Management to prevent unauthorized access.
While DRM in a mod isn’t new for PureDark, who previously added it to their DLSS 3 mod for Red Dead Redemption 2, it drew widespread ire this time around. The internet then promptly cracked the DRM, sharing the mod for free online. This triggered discussions online about the ethics and legality of paid mods, echoing an episode from 2015 when Valve and Bethesda introduced paid Skyrim mods via Steam. The initiative was canned in just days after receiving heavy criticism, and Valve admitted they had “missed the mark pretty badly.”
Despite the surrounding controversy, the optics suggest that users support PureDark’s Starfield DLSS mod. It’s the most popular release on NexusMods with over 200,000 downloads. On the other hand, LukeFZ’s free DLSS 3 mod has only been downloaded over 4,000 times as of the time of writing.
AMD, the “exclusive PC partner for Starfield,” stated that it would fully support Bethesda if it incorporates DLSS. Neither Bethesda nor Nvidia have commented on the mod or the ensuing controversy, which could have legal implications. It is unclear yet if Nvidia will pursue legal action against PureDark over his DRM implementation, although this might seem extreme. Then again, weirder things have happened in the lead up to Starfield’s launch. Don’t forget that someone went ahead and gave an early review of the game using swiped copies, which resulted in a conviction after someone on Reddit ratted them out.
Interestingly, the user experience on both mods indicates comparable performance benefits. Most claim that PureDark’s non-paid DLSS 2 mod performs as well as or better than Starfield’s native FSR 2 support, offering slightly better image quality. LukeFZ’s free DLSS 3 mod reported performance gains that pushed the frame rate above 100 fps in high-demand areas as well.
Overall though, Starfield appears to perform well on a variety of set-ups on the PC, which is very much unlike like, let’s say, Immortals of Aveum, which suffered mightily at launch due to its stringent PC hardware requirements and overall lackluster gameplay.
Ultimately, with the Starfield review bombing expected to start soon, this bit of good news is important for Bethesda’s newest magnum opus.
Paid mods aren’t new, but they remain a controversial topic. The Starfield situation exposes the delicate balance that has to be maintained between rewarding modders for their contributions and maintaining the open, collaborative spirit that has long characterized modding communities. While some believe modders deserve to compensation for putting in time and their skills, others argue that the very ethos of modding opposes such commercialization.
Whatever the stance, PureDark’s actions and the community’s reaction have reignited an unresolved debate that’s likely to remain a hot topic for the foreseeable future.
