I can't believe the number of butt-hurt fanboys coming out of the woodwork (over at reddit for example) about this whole issue.
Leaving aside the magnitude of "dick-move" Valve has just pulled off (which is alarmingly weighted in favour of people who want things for free, surprise-surprise), I think the issue here is way more nuanced and deserving of more debate before we demonise Valve as the next EA. People ain't got a ******* grip, that much is clear and apparent, which in a way is also a positive as it means our overall PC Gaming market has expanded way bigger than we all were thinking back in the days of "PC is dead, long live Xbox/PS3".
Anyway, what was I saying? Oh yeah, well Gabe(n) obviously is trying to go for the classic win-win that Valve has pulled off successively. Modders get money, make better mods, give said money to Valve/Publisher, gamers get quality. Nice in theory, horrendously complicated in practice.
"So where is the nuance Random Guy?!", I hear you cry. Well, to me, this brings out the most important/interesting issue - how much should modders be compensated for their work? At what bar of quality do we as gamers say, "right, this stuff is better than the original, this stuff is totally amazing, I want to GIVE this guy/guys/gals some of my hard-earned dosh"...suspend your disbelief for a second because we all know how much that actually happens in the real world...but should it? Should there be a bar of quality (or multiple bars/milestones) which Mods should achieve, before they are deeemed worthy of cash by the community? Well? I would say *yes*, but I think Valve's approach is not correct here - it is too broadly focused and is coming off as ill-considered, or even one-sided driven by an arrogant assumption that the Publisher/Distribution Network have more say than the community. That was an EA-sized mistake.