Maxis used to be an independent entity, and capable of setting policy and deciding how Sims-related issues could be resolved.
I'm going to yoink some data from Wikipedia to explain my comments, so consider much of the more technical / business-related data to be Wikidata. Maxis is no longer an independent entity. Maxis Software is an American company that was founded as a video game developer and
is now a brand name of Electronic Arts (EA). After the immense success of SimCity, Maxis attempted to go into new areas. However, their new games, including The Crystal Skull and SimCopter, were commercial failures. They also acquired Cinematronics to create a game called Crucible. Heavy losses and lack of direction led Maxis to begin considering acquisition offers. For many years, Maxis was a traditional studio located in Walnut Creek, California (and before that, Orinda, California), but
in February 2004 the division was folded into EA's Redwood Shores headquarters. EA absorbed them, and now is the only entity that has any legal, useful, relevant impact or decision-making power when it comes to the Sims properties. Currently, the company's most successful products are sports games published under their EA Sports label, games based on popular movie licenses and games from long-running franchises like Need for Speed, Medal of Honor, The Sims, Command & Conquer and the later games in the Burnout series.
The Sims are but one of their many properties, they probably do not sell
nearly as well as their EA Sports games, and EA has further shaken things up by shuffling departments into four divisions (
Hecubus posted about this in an earlier thread, so I won't repeat all that info).
Not only are The Sims a relatively new property for EA, they are also a new department, and EA is learning how to deal with a new customer demographic with different concerns. (I believe The Sims are the only games EA publishes that encourage modifications and custom content, but I am not entirely certain about that. If I am right, however, the problem of paysites disregarding the EULA and illegally profiting off EA's Intellectual Property is a new issue for them, and one that will require observation, input from the community, research and legal discussion to sort out.)
EA is also dealing with other, bigger problems than a comparatively minor Sims-related squabble.
Whereas Maxis had The Sims (and pretty much JUST the Sims) to deal with, EA does not focus solely on the Sims property. Our disgruntlement with paysites does not compare with other problems they are dealing with:
*
Wikipedia scandal. On August 15, 2007 it was revealed that IP addresses registered to EA had made changes to their Wikipedia entry favoring EA. The changes made included downplaying the importance of the founder of EA, Trip Hawkins, as well as playing up the importance of the new (at the time) CEO, Larry Probst. Other changes included attempts to remove information regarding the infamous EA Spouse scandal, which involved the poor treatment of workers. In other words, EA was far more concerned with what Wiki readers might think about known issues than what customers might think about game community issues.
They already have your money for the Sims games, you know. By being a part of the community, you are a PAST customer, and not a guaranteed NEW source of income. They may become more responsive when they are ready to promote Sims 3, as that will gather a new community. Note how much attention they pay to Sims 1 players. In part, this is because they were not involved at all with Sims 1, that was solely a Maxian baby. However, they now own Maxis, and have not felt an urge to continue to deal with Sims 1 issues. This isn't unusual or even expected, but don't be surprised to find EA losing even more interest in Sims 2 and its community the closer the time to release Sims 3 comes.
*
The EA Spouse Blog Scandal, referred to above, which revealed how EA workers were mistreated. If they don't treat their employees' concerns and well-being seriously, and these are people actively contributing to their profit margins, then how seriously do you think they take your concerns and problems? U
nless you demonstrate that ignoring your concerns will hurt them in their wallet, they do not give a crap.*
M-Rated Game Moralistic Stances and
Declining EA Stock Value. Following the departure of Trip Hawkins, Larry Probst took over the reins and led the company to its current size and stature. Probst considered himself a man of principle and has refused to follow the M-rated example set by Take Two Interactive, whose violent Grand Theft Auto franchise became the dominant brand in many key demographics from 2000 through 2003. As a result,
Probst was heavily criticized by Wall Street analysts, who believe that because of this policy, EA's stock price is lower than it should be (though it has maintained a general upward trend in recent years). In late March 2005, Electronic Arts issued its first ever mid-quarter profit warning blaming hardware shortages and lower than expected fourth quarter sales. While Probst was in charge, you
might have been able to complain about M- and AO-rated custom content and get some kind of response, though it would probably be a pat-you-on-the-head dismissal done solely to be placating, and their response would have hurt freesite creators just as much as paysite creators, as both make adult content.
*
Staffing Upheavals. On February 1, 2006, Electronic Arts announced that it would cut worldwide staff by 5 percent. Logically, this means that "acquired company (like Maxis) employees" were probably let go before "EA employees" and thus
some of the people who might have been around long enough to know what was going on with regard to Maxis/EA issues are probably gone, and new people are probably not motivated to stick their necks out to address a volatile issue within the user community of one of EA's most profitable new acquisitions. Instead,
Maxoid focus is going to be "make more money for EA" and/or "don't get laid off too".*
Maxis is not the only new acquisition, nor the most recent. On June 20, 2006 EA purchased Mythic Entertainment, currently working on Warhammer Online.
If WO is moddable, and if paysites spring up, then MAYBE that will further encourage EA to address Sims paysite issues, but otherwise the only effect this has on our community is that EA's attention is further divided, and the newest baby is always the most exciting and interesting baby.*
Upheaval at the highest levels of management. In February 2007, Probst stepped down from the CEO job while remaining on the Board of Directors. His handpicked successor is John Riccitiello, who had worked at EA for several years previously, departed for a while, and then returned. Riccitiello previously worked for Elevation Partners, Sara Lee and Pepsico. In other words, the big boss has no experience dealing with game modding issues. Again, an issue for the legal department, and their IP hassles probably are focused more on, say, bootleg Pepsi logo T-shirts being sold in Asia and similar issues, not less clear-cut IP problems that involve defining exactly where EA's IP stops and meshers/Photoshoppers/modders IPs begin.
As it stands, all your content are belong to EA Games, but their focus is going to be on making a decision that makes them the most money. Again, it behooves us to point out the aspects of paysite shittiness that potentially costs EA money or potentially drives away paying customers.
If Bon Voyage capitulates to paysites, as they seem to think it might, then our response needs to be prompt and visible: to refuse to buy any more Sims 2 products, and any potential Sims 3 products, as well as any other EA titles. I don't know that the community at large has the discipline to avoid buying new shinies long enough to make that kind of protest, though. *
Expansion to Other Gaming Platforms / OSes. Also, in 2007, EA announced that it would be bringing some of its major titles (such as Madden 08, Need for Speed: Carbon, etc.) to the Macintosh. Again, another case of their attention being focused on things other than what is, to them, a very minor problem that is restricted to only one of their properties.
*
EA is typically more concerned with a quick profit than customer satisfaction or game quality. EA is often criticized for buying smaller development studios primarily for their intellectual property assets, and then making the developers produce run-of-the-mill games on these same franchises. For example, Origin-produced Ultima VIII: Pagan and Ultima IX: Ascension were developed quickly under EA's ownership, and these two are considered by many as not up to the standard of the rest of the series.
Can you say Stuff Packs? I knew you could.*
EA is known for punishing new acquisitions for poor decisions made by EA. EA is also criticized for shutting down its acquired studios after a poorly performing game. Many see EA's control and direction as being primarily responsible for the game's failure rather than the studio. Magic Carpet 2 was rushed to completion over the objections of designer Peter Molyneux and it shipped during the holiday season with several major bugs. This problem is no doubt a bit familiar to Sims players. If The Sims was shipped without egregious game-wrecking bugs, then modders like Pescado wouldn't be kept so busy unfuxx0ring said bugs.
Maxoids are no doubt aware of EA's punitive policies towards purchased studios' employees in the past, and are likely to say almost anything to avoid becoming a thorn in EA's side. If that means appeasing some irritated paysite people or placating angry BBS people or telling some pirates what they want to hear, then Maxoids will do it. As a result, you need to take what they say with a lot of skepticism and rely on EA and EA's legal team to define what is really going on or what policy will be (or, in fact, what policy IS). Maxoids are not going to be a useful resource.*
Did we mention that EA is Trigger-happy? EA has also received harsh fire from labour groups for their dismissals of large groups of employees during the closure of a studio. Such was the case with the game GoldenEye: Rogue Agent. If you don't know the official EA party line, but want to keep your job, and your job is handling BBS and tech support problems, you are going to say just about anything to keep customers happy. So Maxoid A will say to pirates that paysites are the devil, and Maxoid B will tell paysites that no decisions have been made yet, which paysites no doubt interpret as "carry on, my wayward son" because to interpret it otherwise cuts into THEIR profits. I mean, duh.
*
EA is not that great at providing support as it is. After releasing many semi-finished products, the lack of support is notable in many games, assured by the fact that EA declared openly that they would no longer support relatively new but still buggy titles, like Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Need for Speed: Underground and some of the latest Command and Conquer games- though in defence of EA, the latest Command & Conquer game, Tiberium Wars has been given 6 patches in just over 4 months, and EALA have guaranteed at least two more patches, bringing the future total up to 8, which many consider a vast improvement over past efforts.
Quickly, now, describe the issues Sims users have had with late patches, crappy patches, patches that need patches, patches that undo previously patched issues and reinstate old problems, patches that create new and irritating problems, and so on. Apparently we should consider ourselves lucky we get patches and support at all, given EA's spotty record when it comes to fixing games that were shipped in a buggy, fuxx0red state. *
EA is known for saying one thing and doing another. Electronic Arts announced it would not support the Sega Dreamcast unless it sold 1 million units. When this happened within a record 90 days, EA went back on their word and declined to support the Dreamcast in favour of Sony's PlayStation 2.
*
EA is motivated solely by the bottom line, and their bottom line alone. EA has also been criticized for other aggressive business methods like the acquisition of 19.9 percent of shares of their competitor Ubisoft in what was called a "hostile act" by Ubisoft CEO, Yves Guillemot.
Right now, their bottom line is not as financially sound as they would prefer, their stock value is less than it was expected to be, and they have other fish to fry when it comes to public opinion and customer / community complaints. As has been pointed out, Maxis has been "demoted" to babysitting the illiterate 12 year olds at the BBS, at least where The Sims are concerned, and even the nicknames do not always represent one individual. Maxis employees do not represent EA legally and are probably just as confused as non-formerly-EA-associated individuals.There have been several cases where a Maxoid has given poor advice, either because it is flat out wrong, or because they were struggling to guess what EA policy might be. They have been wrong about problems with the games, about game content, and about how to fix problems with the game. Since Maxis is no longer separate from EA, the wise thing for Maxoids to do would be to refer problems to the correct department at EA, but adding the extra step and delay to getting a user's question answered or problem resolved is probably anathema for Maxoids who used to be a part of setting policy and having their comments and opinions have more official status and weight.
Some Maxoids take a minimalist / hands-off policy on the BBS and only moderate if harsh or abusive or profane language is used, others strive to zorch even the mildest disagreements. The only thing you can count on is that they will say anything to make their BBS user wrangling less of a headache, either because they actually think it is correct, based on how things were before they were incorporated into EA, or to make squeaky wheels go away and leave them alone more quickly. If the primary power Maxoids have left these days is herding unruly users on the BBS, it behooves them to do whatever they can to maintain the peace. A peaceful BBS full of shiny, happy sheeple indicates that they are doing their job well, in their mind. A BBS full of fights over paysites and EULAs, much of which will only confuse and agitate the 12-year-olds, is not something a Maxoid would want to deal with, and an unruly BBS full of unhappy customers would imply that Maxis is not handling their duties well.
In the end, you are asking employees of a huge company to explain the legal opinion of the parent company before the parent company has finished sorting that out themselves. It is like asking someone in MySpace's abuse department to tell you why Time-Warner is dragging its heels about announcing a needed clarification in one of its policies. Time-Warner bought out MySpace, and MySpace employees still know how to resolve MySpace-specific and abuse- or usage-related questions, but they can't tell you how or even if Time-Warner is planning on changing the legal Terms Of Use information you click "I agree" to when you sign up for a MySpace account. Someone at MySpace can't tell you about any movie or television projects T-W may be involved in either.
It is a similar situation with Maxis.
Maxis is used to dealing with The Sims in a particular way, and it is normal and understandable that some Maxis employees would assume that the old Maxis way still applies, especially if they are not fully aware of the community-disrupting issue about paysites and people defying the EULA to make a buck they are not legally allowed to make. This does not mean that their advice about legal matters at EA is worthwhile.The EULA for products that have nothing to do with custom content creation can, and probably should, remove the "non-commercial" part, because it never did apply to those specific tools. The only change they made was to make the EULA make more sense when applied to tools that can not be used in a commercial way in the first place. EULAs that are relevant to the paysite problem are EULAs for tools that actually can be used to create custom content, and to the game itself. (For more information on this, see Calalily's comments and translated legalese.)
We are used to taking Maxoid comments as gospel because The Sims was their product before EA bought them out. Now The Sims belong to EA, and EA is going to futz around and drag their feet as long as they can before finally addressing the problem, if they ever do. Again, anything that cuts into potential profit is going to get more attention and energy directed at it. Appeasing a community of PAST (and current) customers is not going to rank as high as dealing with FUTURE customers, and improving their bottom line, and selling FUTURE game units from ALL their divisions and game titles and series.
What we do have to go on is a very clearly worded EULA that only the dimmest and most greedy arsehole can possibly manage to misinterpret in any way, a EULA that does NOT ALLOW commercial profit to be made off of EA's goodies or IP, a EULA that states that once something is made compatible with their game engine and code it belongs to EA and can't be sold, and we also have new games coming out that make custom content exchange either automatic or extremely simple (I believe someone commented that they played an EA game that allowed custom mapped terrains, and that merely playing against someone who had mappable terrain they did not yet have caused the new custom content to automagically be exchanged).
It doesn't surprise me that EA's legal department would be taking their time to get back to us, because they are no doubt confused that anyone with an IQ over room temperature could possibly be confused by the current EULA and pulling their hair out in frustration and asking, "
damn, how much more clearly do we have to write it? Are most Sims players really THAT retarded? Do we need to use pictures and graphs and monosyllabic words?" Hey, lawyers hate monosyllabic words. They aren't nearly fancy enough.
Whatever! This is just one person's opinion. Take it or leave it. I could care less.
(And with this, I pass the Flame The Stupid baton back to Paden. Tag, you're it.)
PMBD
Author