Context: It's a paid mod but doesn't appear the guy was in it for profit, rather to support the time spent which covers multiple games.

The precedent here I find a little weak, a mod isn't facilitating piracy nor is it a replacement for the original product. You need to own the game, the mod is a layer that adds additional features.

When mapping the context to the real world it's more worrying, you don't get car makers suing accessory makers for selling phone mounts advertised to fit their vehicles.

Question for people who are lawyers or lawyer adjacent: would you be able to reasonable argue against this in court, assuming you do not use any Cyberpunk assets or content directly, and instead just offer a dll mod of the game that writes memory at specific addresses and modifies code (i'm assuming that's what this mod is doing)? To me, if you're not using any of the actual game's content CDPR can't reasonably claim that you're infringing on their copyright, but ianal.

Meanwhile thousands of modders make some money on nexusmods from their Cyberpunk mods. My Cyberpunk mods get me like 200 USD/month in passive income. Why is this guy getting singled out?

Damn, and I was just getting to love gog as the not-a-fuckwit alternative platform. guess i'll stick with steam afterall.

Today's lesson: don't paywall mods!

Like it or not, mods should be free. Unless you want that scene to turn into another shitshow, just like what happened with Youtube. The moment you open the floodgates on that, the modscene will be flooded with crap and yet another commercial-free space gets molested by the icy hand of capitalism. Financialization destroys everything it touches!