That is a drastic reversal of causality here. How on earth can you know that this wouldn't have happened if the mod hadn't been made? That's a massive deductive leap you're making based on zero real evidence.
A more sensible version of this: there are millions and millions of players out there - of which a small but significant portion have the skills to create mods. Players, and thus modders, vastly outnumber the people working at any given developer. And crucially, they do this on their free time, when they don't have other assigned work tasks - unlike developers doing these things as a job. Thus, chances of a modder implementing something like this before a developer can get around to it? Massive. Essentially 100%. There is nothing surprising or wrong about this - it's just a logical outcome of the different conditions in which such work is done. For a developer to beat a modder to something like this would essentially require someone in management ordering one or more developers to drop whatever they're currently doing and do this thing instead. (They'd also need to fast track a bunch of testing/QC, which takes a lot of time.) That would be terrible management, and would make for a very unhealthy workplace. Stability and the ability to plan ahead is crucially important - but yes, this also means things take more time than for someone who on a whim wants to do this as a hobby project.
Granted there are few (few vs alot) exceptions, thats a given, but you're right I have zero evidence, and I am not a gamer...
I based what I said on my experiences with the games, I and my friends have played and shared our experiences, I have developed my own mods, was playtester for 7D2D, playtester for several large "complete" mods. But thats all personal experience, what evidence is it you needed exactly?
When I started paying attention to mods and modders, the biggest surprise turns out to be one of a games developers, that could not do anything officially, added specific content or bug fixes, the later being used as a beta test for official bug fixxes, all done via modding.
Some games are easier to mod than others, XML vs LUA for example, one might find LUA easier to mod than XML but thats a rare individual. I have done my own modding on 7 Days to Die, a game that didnt have mod support until a developer on the project added mod support via a mod. Several Devs in that game wound up taking an active part in modding, in an unofficial role only. Most gamers know its not exactly the first time, nor will it be the last time a mod (by anyone) changed aspects, even nudged the direction of a game.
With 99% of games needing a fixitup patch within 6 months after release/launch day modders have been [almost] depended upon to fix things they can find, plenty of which the developers implement, and given recognition. I've done it and got made a moderator for the QA discord channel. There have been instances where a modder has actually been hired by the game developer, usually due to extensive modding.
Games cannot fast track anything (any game worth their salt), officially, if they have a team of QA testers, we were directed to focus on a specific area or event, intentionally leaving out specifics, which was always a way to confirm an issue. Yea been there....
It would be interesting someone to compare the modded version with the official version and see if quality problems that where probably in the modded version, remain in the official also. That could lead to speculations about FSR's general quality, or the quality of the implementation it self. Who says that Rockstar didn't just did what modders done, without any other kind of effort? They could have just put a "Official" sticker on it and nothing else.
which kinds of quality problems, graphic or game play?
Who says that Rockstar didn't just did what modders done, without any other kind of effort? They could have just put a "Official" sticker on it and nothing else.
Wouldnt be the first time a developer added such stickers.
