Interesting post on Sim2.com

[Sherry]

They are not taking an actual stand on the issue would upset a large number of fans in either direction.  Being neutral pisses off both groups, but it still allows either to go and do whatever they want.  EA is not going to take a stand now just because a bunch of simmers have found PMBD and are excited and aggravated about the issue.  Why would they?  They have dealt with it too many times in the past to know the with a little waiting it will blow over.  

flyonthewall the issue won't go away, but everyone's intensity about it will.  It always does.  EA is only looking out for EA.  What more does anyone really expect they would do?  They have successfuly avoided the issue for at least 5 years that I have been aware of it's existance.  They will probably continue to do so.

[Pescado]

EA doesn't want to take sides on this issue because it doesn't directly affect them as it stands now, but taking a position would set themselves up in a potentially lose/lose position: The EA EULA is a frankly legally shaky document that may not hold up in a fight. EA does not wish to attack paysites because they may lose. Paysites do not wish to attack EA because they could lose, and it would be expensive. EA doesn't wish to attack us because that would essentially be shooting their own EULA. Thus, this situation is lose/lose, and the only thing they really CAN do is to pull a Lythdan: FINGERS IN EARS!

[Vaughna]

EA will do whatever is cheapest for them.  They won't spend one cent on lawyers fighting paysites.  But technically, I think they would win since it is their product, and in some cases, their tools being used for sale.

[jesserocket]

It is a shame thast instead a saying anything concrete, they had to do a 'You're BOTH my favourite kid!' thing, BUT, at least this way, they have said something, and have not just, in a kneejerk sort of way gone: 'ThepiratesarebadOMG!!' or something...what I'm attempting to say is, however lamely, they have now adressed the issue in a way, and it has in no way condemned us, which does, in a way, lend us extra credibility, in the eyes of most sheep who own't listen to proper argument...

[flyonthewall]

That's true. For all the whining paysite owners do about "stealing", there's not really anything they can do about it because EA won't choose a side.

Why do paysite owners think the issue is so black and white?

[Mac_in_Black]

EA is enjoying the show. What happens when a parent states "You're BOTH my favorite!"? The kids take care of it, the decision is theirs. EA is waiting for the kids to get serious. Staying neutral is safe. There's the paysite side, the anti-paysite side, and the EA side.  

I really think creators that are so huffy about their stuff and get honked off so easily need to get a real job and learn how to enjoy a hobby for what it is supposed to be... fun.

Hey, Ryu Hayabusa has a point, "Life is difficult if your soul is imperfect." You're doing something wrong, it's only going to get harder. As long as there is an ounce of good left in this world the bad will never win. Thus, the eternal struggle.

I got y'all misty eyed didn't I? I know, shut up. I'll go read a book.  :roll:

[Sherry]

I don't think the EULA is all that shaky, I think it's something that EA could solidify as law pretty easily if they wanted to.  It's just easier, as many have mentioned for them, from all standpoints not to.  In my mind they have pretty much taken a stand already, but it's in the enforcing part they lack.  It's like your mom threatening to ground you if you don't clean your room.  If she never enforces the punishment, are you going to take what she says seriously?  I think it's not so much about black and white as it is about the fact that EA has been ignoring that paysites have been getting away with something they shouldn't for so long now, well it's hard to ground them and fix such an epic problem which really has little effect on them where it matters.  In their profits.  So they'll ignore the mess and move on selling EPs and stuff packs.

EA is enjoying the show.

I doubt that.  I am sure they wish it would end as much as we wish they would take a firm stand on the issue.  Because eveytime this issue pops up they have to spend alot of time and effort pretending to ignore and be neutral about it, which is probably a hard thing to do.

... they have said something, and have not just, in a kneejerk sort of way gone: 'ThepiratesarebadOMG!!' or something...what I'm attempting to say is, however lamely, they have now adressed the issue in a way, and it has in no way condemned us, which does, in a way, lend us extra credibility, in the eyes of most sheep who own't listen to proper argument...

True but commenting on filesharing as bad would have more implications than *filesharing* not being allowed.  It would mean dealing with massive complaints on the exchange and even moreso than that, taking a stand against filesharing, would be like backing paysites, and discrediting their own EULA.  There are plenty of people who do not fileshare or like filesharing, but who also do not like the idea of paysites and what they have become.  They know they would upset more than filesharers if they took a stand against us.

[Vaughna]

So they'll ignore the mess and move on selling EPs and stuff packs.

I would think the paysites would harm EA's profits as many people would rather buy a paysite set than a pack.  The packs are kind of bland in comparision.

[Sherry]

I think stuff packs target a different audience.  There are alot of people who prefer Maxis content only, crazy but I have stumbled upon a few forums to see that this is true.  Forums that share all those "special" Maxis gifts from preorder this and hidden thats.  There are enough people who need to have everything too, the minor new objects or animations are enough to make them empty their pockets.  I don't think paysites existance effect the stuff pack sales either way.  Either you are into them or not.  There could be no paysites and I still wouldn't buy those packs.  However, I guess you could argue that the existance of CC in general might hurt the sales of stuff packs, but then with no CC I probably wouldn't still be interested in the game itself.  It's a conundrum for sure.

[tIIsuggas]

If EA decided to enforce their EULA, and go after the paysites, they would only need to make an example of one.

They wouldn't need to challenge them all, the rest would dive for cover.

Either that, or re-word the EULA.  And  I presume that would be a mighty headache, with all the copies already installed on peoples machines.  I admit I am ignorant where EULA changing goes.

[Sherry]

If EA decided to enforce their EULA, and go after the paysites, they would only need to make an example of one.

They wouldn't need to challenge them all, the rest would dive for cover.

Either that, or re-word the EULA.  And  I presume that would be a mighty headache, with all the copies already installed on peoples machines.  I admit I am ignorant where EULA changing goes.

I don't know about that.  EULA says non-commercial, not no paysites.  So techinically you could have a very shitty hosting plan, but still be non-commerical or claiming to be.  Infact a hell of alot of sites still claim that now, even though we know it's almost impossible that it is so.

It might cause Paysites to drop there cost a bit and then charge they are non-commercial I doubt though most sites would cave in to it though unless they knew EA was going to actively investigate, which we know they would not.

[lemmiwinks]

"It’s like bigamy: If a man is married to two women, and they don't care, there's nothing anyone can do about it. It’s still "against the law" but no one other than one of the wives can press charges."

Not true. If it is against the law, *anyone* including the government itself can press charges.

[notveryawesome]

Well, it seems obvious to me that the reason for EA's neutrality in this matter is strictly profit-driven. They don't want to take sides, because they know that both sides are consumers of EA products. Why would any business-savvy corporation want to risk alienating a large segment of its consumer-base for any reason? It just wouldn't make good business sense to do so.

[Plum]

Well, it seems obvious to me that the reason for EA's neutrality in this matter is strictly profit-driven. They don't want to take sides, because they know that both sides are consumers of EA products. Why would any business-savvy corporation want to risk alienating a large segment of its consumer-base for any reason? It just wouldn't make good business sense to do so.

That's my thought on it too.  Well put.