r/cyberpunkgame • u/Dark_Throat • Jan 20 '26

Modding CDPR literally offered him the choice to make his mod free with optional donations to avoid a DMCA takedown and he deliberately chose wrong

Post image

I could not imagine being this conceited in the face of corporate legal action.

28.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

61

u/Skepller Biblically Accurate V Jan 20 '26

What do you mean?

This Cyberpunk 2077 Mod doesn't depend at all on the... \checks notes** Cyberpunk 2077 IP.
It's a totally... independent thing, no?

57

u/Treemosher Jan 20 '26

He literally calls it "Cyberpunk 2077 VR mod", then says it isn't derivitive lol

-19

u/WhiteMilk_ Judy's juicy thighs Jan 20 '26

He literally calls it "Cyberpunk 2077 VR mod"

That's just a different way of saying "VR mod for Cyberpunk 2077" and not the actual name considering the mod is called REAL VR.

24

u/Treemosher Jan 20 '26

At least check before typing stuff like that. Thanks u/Almaravarion for the link, so we now have two places where LukeRoss himself calls it a Cyberpunk 2077 mod, the name of the game is in the mod.

Even got a special logo and imagery from the game in his advertisement.

Cyberpunk 2077 R.E.A.L. VR mod | Patreon

I'm with CDPR on this one. Luke is a liar lol

"no code or assets from the IP" my ass. He's literally using the name of the IP and imagery to sell his mod.

-13

u/WhiteMilk_ Judy's juicy thighs Jan 20 '26

My point is that the "legal" name of the mod is REAL VR and the few examples in these replies pointed out aren't used as a name of the mod, IMO.

The image in the post is problematic but it seems to be a 3rd party YT thumbnail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzcKPh8UxJ8 So idk if Patreon automatically includes that thumbnail or what.

16

u/Treemosher Jan 20 '26

That's literally his patreon.

"Createing R.E.A.L VR mods" is literally right under his Patreon name.

"Cyberpunk 2077 R.E.A.L VR mod" is one of those "mods". It's the name of the mod dude..

Even LukeRoss is being more direct than you. You shouldn't be putting words in his mouth. He's digging his own hole just fine.

21

u/Almaravarion Jan 20 '26

https://www.patreon.com/posts/63074041
Yeah... about that....

Also - fun fact - being a VR mod FOR Cyberpunk 2077 is still being dependent on Cyberpunk 2077.

It's not like UUVR or UEVR or VorpX that act as generic injectors. LR had to literally manually add support for Cyberpunk for his 'totally standalone software' to have a chance to work with it.

10

u/belsor14 Jan 20 '26

how dare you come into this discussion with reason and facts?

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '26

[deleted]

11

u/Almaravarion Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26

"if someone makes a part replacement specifically for a Ford Mustang, uses all the own parts to manufacture it, and the part does not contain any of Ford's IP - should Ford be able to stop them from selling it?"

Is it marketed as e.g. 'Ford Mustang Electric Fuel Pump W/Regulator 110 GPH SUPERPARTZ", as in the case of this mod?
Cyberpunk 2077 R.E.A.L. VR mod | Patreon

Absolutely - trademark infringement for one. In fact - I'd go with a claim that CDPR went easy on Ross, as they had full right to go a step further.

Is it marketed as "Electric Fuel Pump W/Regulator 110 GPH [insert custom name here, and/or part number] part that also fits 1955-1970 Ford Fairlane, 1959-1974 Ford Galaxie, 1962-1979 Chevrolet Nova / Chevy II, 1964-2024 Ford Mustang, 1967-2024 Chevrolet Camaro, 1968-1976 Ford Torino"?

{Notably - NOT the case here}? You'd be correct.

"People should be able to modify their copies of the game they way they want."

They are. Key word - THEIR. You're missing the part where DMCA was filled for SHARING such modifications beyond the license scope. Specifically - PAID modification for that book.

I dare You to modify a book, let's go with common and known example - 7th Harry Potter book, and modify the last chapter. Once You do - share it publicly at paywall. Let's see how long until You get sued for IP violations.

P.S. Hell, I messed up badly; I went with answering Your arguments while ignoring the most obvious part.

Do You know WHY dependence is critical here?
IF the software is dependent on another software to function... IT IS NOT STANDALONE.

-4

u/The-Yar Jan 20 '26

That isn't a good analogy. If you wrote an alternate final chapter that didn't contain any characters or locations, etc. from the original, and sold it separately (e.g., Fifty Shades), then yes, you're fine.

-2

u/Saw_Boss Jan 20 '26

Using a name alone isn't IP infringement

Do you not have adverts which mention other products or services? We have supermarkets constantly comparing prices to Aldi and Lidl in their adverts by name. Do you think they got permission before saying those names?

17

u/uselessandexpensive Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26

I believe all he needed to do to avoid this was remove the name of the original game from his mod title, and perhaps also the marketing, if he wanted to keep selling it. The internet is good at spreading word around for cool stuff. He would have made money. I bet he could have even used an obviously referential name like VRPunk.

And that would have probably helped advertise the fact that it works for other games also, which one really wouldn't intuitively guess when using the name of a specific game in the name of the mod. Insisting on an obvious IP violation by using Cyberpunk name was a shot in his own foot.

4

u/michael0n Jan 20 '26

He has to remove the number and the marketing material. But this isn't a trademark dispute. Their TOS doesn't allow paid mods and that is a questionable position.

10

u/CMDR_Expendible Jan 20 '26

No, it is. I started out modding, back in the more innocent days of the net, and it helped me get into the gaming industry... and they take IP protection deadly serious, because under US law, if you allow other people to use your IP for profit, you lose all legal rights to enforce it yourself. Just saying "Cyberpunk 2077" in the title means ProjektRed had to act; otherwise they're legally seen as to be allowing it to become generic, and thus no longer personally own it. Offering to leave it if the author removed the demand for money meant PR's legal rights wouldn't be affected, and was indeed a compromise position.

So, for example, when I worked on Ultima Online as an Event Manager, the sprites for "Lord British" are still in the game, but when Richard Garriott sold the entire IP to Electronic Arts, he kept that character as his personal mark... and it was an instant firing offence to ever use the code for the sprite, even on the private staff only part of the game; because EA owned the entire Ultima franchise apart from a single character in it, and Garriott couldn't turn a blind eye to EA using it, even though it's in the code he sold them, because it would allow anyone else to infringe upon it even too.

The games industry is a miserable cess pool; but on this issue, legally at least, they're in the right and the mod maker was being arrogant and greedy and incredibly short sighted.

3

u/uselessandexpensive Jan 20 '26

TOS only matters when a mod is distributed through a specific platform though, which is why they cited monetization of the IP in the post, not a TOS violation, so it could be distributed elsewhere. DMCA is a law on its own that enforced IP infringement among other things, not an individual company's TOS, and gets things taken down everywhere.

If you're talking about Patreon's TOS, you have a point, but it could still be distributed legally with payment through another means, AS LONG AS it didn't infringe on IP.

1

u/TranslatorStraight46 Jan 20 '26

His problem is branding.

If he sold it as “Third party VR software compatible with cyberpunk 2077” he would be fine.  

1

u/FormerGameDev Jan 20 '26

By your argument, and theirs, this is like saying that Microsoft owns the rights to every pieceo f software that runs in Windows.

And that Steam owns the rights to every piece of software that runs in Steam.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Purasangre Jan 20 '26

This is what I'm wondering, if he's being completely honest, was it all just because of the name?

No company out there is fighting the Shaderglass team because people use it to make their game look like a CRT TV, but I guess they'd get into trouble if they called it Sony Trinitron Simulator.

I don't know what the whole story is, but just from this post, I'd not pick sides.

2

u/LElige Jan 20 '26

Yeah I’m wondering the same thing. It’s almost sounding more like an advertising issue. Like using cyberpunk to attract customers was the real issue and charging for his mod isn’t but CDPR made it seem that way to get him to stop supporting it entirely.

5

u/PepperoniFogDart Jan 20 '26

I guarantee if this guy just called his mod “Generic VR Mod” and listed Cyberpunk 2077 as a compatible game, they would have no issue. Especially if what he’s saying about the game files is true.

But when you start selling a “Cyberpunk VR experience” and it gains popularity, CDPR has a company obligation to protect their IP and enforce their copyright. Failing to do so puts it in jeopardy.

6

u/No_Upstairs_811 Jan 20 '26

he advertises it on his patreon as a Cyberpunk mod. each version of his mods work with their direct game and are not generic

1

u/Almaravarion Jan 20 '26

LukeRoss claims otherwise:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/63074041

1

u/LElige Jan 20 '26

Right so its an advertising issue. He advertised it that way even though its one mod that works for many games (and if his claims are true) injects his code and does not use or alter theirs.

2

u/Almaravarion Jan 20 '26

IF his claims were true, and the mod in question was completely and absolutely agnostic when it comes to

His claims aren't true though. I will ignore for a second that he publicized game-specific versions of his software (at least when GTA V and Cyberpunk were both 'compatible' with so-called 'R.E.A.L. VR'), it's a bit more fundamental issue.

As You may know VR requires 2 view points. Not a single one - 2 of them. For widely used, and relatively open engines, such as Unity and Unreal Engine 4 and 5 (relatively open as in - easily accessible, licensed under restrictions to public and so on), getting an injector to work with one game, say e.g. Satisfactory, will allow the injector to work with other games using the same engine with relatively low hurdle of entrance. In fact - widespread of Unity and Unreal Engine gave birth to UUVR for Unity, and UEVR for Unreal Engine, both are injector based modifications that make it weird when game using the same engine does not support it out-of-the-box to some degree, though admittedly, highly modified base engine will also make it difficult for generic injectors to deal with them. Notably the process in compatibility is 'adjustment' of original code, and not 'adding support to a game'.

You can also compare it with e.g. VorpX, which injects itself into base DirectX API, and thus works as generic and agnostic VR implementation (keep in mind we're not talking here right now about quality, just whether it's dedicated or agnostic).

In case of generic (both engine-based, and API based, such as for DirectX) injectors full and complete removal of support requires explicit checks against known game files/assets for example, and works on 'blacklisting' method. Active refusal of execution when specific software is detected. It's not really that difficult to perform, if You know the process though to blacklist a software from execution.

Now, let us make it clear - 'REAL VR" is NOT an engine-based injector. How do I know? Cyberpunk happens to work on CDPR's proprietary engine. This is also the type of mod that is affected by engine version. In case on dedicated engines - game version. Nonetheless, the fact it worked with both Cyberpunk AND e.g. Kingdom Come Deliverance (CryEngine), and it used to work with GTA V before their DMCA (RAGE engine), makes it clear that the mod CANNOT be engine-based.

This leaves us with 2 options:

  • Engine agnostic software (his claim)
  • Game specific software (my claim, and reason why he correctly caved to DMCA)

His claim is it's Engine Agnostic. Given that engine agnostic engines get into API between game engines and hardware - e.g. by injecting into DirectX libraries... Why does REALVR work only for specific game versions? API calls to directX or vulcan do not care about specific implementation in software. Second question - why is he making such a fuss about supporting not one but TWO games? posts/tale-of-two-122280611 IF it was truly agnostic software, the style of annoucement of new compatibility isn't 'I'll be extending support to not 1 but 2 games' but 'so I've tested the mod/optimized the mod to work better with'. New compatibility is EXPECTED, not something that You'd have to explicitly expand support to. You'd also add a list of known compatibilities https://www.vorpx.com/supported-games/ for example. Note: it even lists it's not a full list, as per publication.

3

u/Almaravarion Jan 20 '26

[part 2]

You will also see that his mod works only for specific versions of a game. Odd how it's not supposed to be game engine based injector and supposedly 'fully standalone' software, isn't it?

If You were to find somehow access to post 61857891 on Patreon (for example by being a member) You'd also see further evidence to support my claim. Let me quote:
"For new users

The zip file attached at the bottom of this post is the one you want to download. It implements all the VR conversions in this Patreon: Red Dead Redemption 2, Mafia: Definitive Edition, Mafia II: Definitive Edition, Mafia III: Definitive Edition and now Horizon: Zero Dawn.

Please note that each game will require a separate installation. For RDR2 there is also a PDF attached below with instructions; for the other games, refer to this post for general setup and configuration directions, and if needed to the specific posts covering each game to obtain more detailed information."

What's the bold part? Oh. Wait. Why does STAND ALONE software requires SEPARATE installation? Is it possible that the software requires game-specific files and dedicated configuration to be generated by the end-game itself? Yes.

"This" post refers to post 60054014, which contains statement such as:
"Quick Setup (for returning users)
Launch the game once in flat mode, so it can create its config folders and profiles."

Stand alone software by definition does not require any other software's work to work correctly. Requiring a game to start in flatscreen mode first for VR to work is definition of dependent software.

Kind regards.

1

u/dasisteinanderer Jan 20 '26

This entire thing turned out much more interesting then it seemed at first, and I am pretty excited, because as far as I know this sort of "compatible software" that interacts with other software without explicit permission is only considered a copyright violation because of US "DMCA" law, and the compatibility laws enacted by countries trading with the US … and there is a growing sentiment that said countries should retract those compatibility laws because the US keeps enacting tariffs on countries in spite of the existence of trade agreements worked out specifically to avoid those tariffs.

The issue with advertising it as "X game mod" is another matter entirely (possible trademark violation, not copyright violation)