New confirmation

[missangelica]

More crumbs being tossed down to appease the peasants.

They're not new crumbs.  They're crumbs that have been eaten and digested and gone out the other end.

[Duckie]

LOL! I was trying to be nice about it but that's the truth of it.

[Apsalar]

Arrr! Indeed, I can't muster any 'impressings' either. In fact, it's got me all unimpressed. I'm pressing for more rum though!

[bohemianscribe]

Sherry Wrote:

at the end of the day EA really needs to do something other than write us pretty letters

I have to agree. In all honesty, I never did quite understand why they bother writing a EULA if they weren't prepared to enforce it. It's a mystery.

Speaking of Maxis, I thought they were no longer part of EA? I'm pretty slow on the news front/going ons in the community.

PS. Thanks for the info/update Nouk.

[darkangel]

Actually, I thought Maxis was gone...bought by EA and thus...swallowed.

Maxis Software is an American company that was founded as a video game developer and is now a brand name of Electronic Arts (EA).
[...]
Electronic Arts (EA) completed its acquisition of Maxis on July 28, 1997. Compared to other companies acquired by EA, such as Origin Systems and Westwood Studios, the absorption of Maxis has taken a slower pace, and the company has retained some of its original staff, including Will Wright. Products were shipped under the Maxis logo for several years, but in 2004, The Sims 2 only bore the Electronic Arts logo on the box cover (although Sims 2 displays the Maxis logo at game start, and on the reverse side of the box). As of October 18, 2006, and the release of The Sims 2: Pets expansion pack, the Maxis title has been omitted from the game's start.

So I'm wrong. hm.

[Clementyne]

Pirate Gem just wants confirmation on the .package thing.  I agree with that.  If we had something in writing from EA stating that .package files are also included in the "tools", then paysites just got their last itty bitty leg swept out from under them.

edit: argh! This thread went to fast and I posted a bit late. It was in response to Missangelica and Pirate Gem on page 1 >< And HP's link on another thread basically has that in writing. Yay!

[OneEyedWillie]

ladidah was advised to edit

[HystericalParoxysm]

I can't see that happening, or working.  Beyond the simple technical expertise required to make something capable of doing that being pretty hard to come by, all the expertise of the free community hasn't made something capable of doing that.  SimPE still takes a lot of learning to use any one part of it and it's by no means automated for many processes.

I also can't see being able to make a program to make something game-workable - with the express purpose of using it to sell content -  without being in violation.  I don't think you could completely separate all the game's information from it and still have it output something like that.

Hair meshes would also be completely impossible to do via that method, too - no user would be willing to sit and reassign every one of those vertices with multiple bone weights because it had to be separated from the skeleton to be sold clear of original game components.  And body meshes are already irrelevant, containing original game parts in 99.9% of body meshes.

I don't think it's possible to properly separate most things out like that.  Completely static objects, perhaps, but once you get into hacked objects and anything more complicated, it just wouldn't work.

Of course, the technical issues are really not that important, as users wouldn't go for it.  They whine and cry if a hair is left un-binned... they're not going to follow a tutorial and instructions to put together each individual piece of content, especially if they've already paid for it.

[Jojoba]

Ok one thing I'm waiting for is for the paysites to stop posting .packages and start selling the components to create the package with a file attached explaining how to install it into your game.....I'm kinda surprised they haven't caught onto that yet...

Meh, in my view that option just would not work for two reasons

1) its too complicated & complex - people wont be bothered enough/understand it enough to buy that and put it together themselves, when they can get complete stuff for free

2) they will learn how to make things, and so will make their own stuff from scratch - so wont need to buy the pay stuff when they can make it themselves for free

But if they are desperate enough, then they will try it.  :roll:

[missangelica]

Pirate Gem just wants confirmation on the .package thing.  I agree with that.  If we had something in writing from EA stating that .package files are also included in the "tools", then paysites just got their last itty bitty leg swept out from under them.

edit: argh! This thread went to fast and I posted a bit late. It was in response to Missangelica and Pirate Gem on page 1 >< And HP's link on another thread basically has that in writing. Yay!

I'd ignore this since it was necromancy but since you said my name then I'm going to respond.  My response to the confirmation was that it was like at least the third confirmation in a row over a period of a couple days that said basically the same thing so I wasn't impressed.  It felt/feels like beating a dead horse, ya know?  I understand why she did it though.

[mando]

Ok one thing I'm waiting for is for the paysites to stop posting .packages and start selling the components to create the package with a file attached explaining how to install it into your game.....I'm kinda surprised they haven't caught onto that yet...

I don't think it will work for another reason aside from the ones listed above. Outside of the Sims 2, creators are free to sell their textures and meshes through various sites and to various clients. The above situation would mean that the creators are having to sell their original meshes and models to the paysite, which could mean they lose a certain set of rights to control how and where they are published. At the moment, these creations are confined to just Sims 2 use, however if the above was true then things would be quite different. I will admit that meshes and textures can be pulled out now by using various programs, but, as HP said, doing so requires a fairly high level of skill and knowledge.

It would certainly require new agreements to be drawn up between the paysite and the creator in order to limit the use of said objects. I know for myself that I would be less than keen on handing out my original meshes and textures to be used by a gigantic group of basically uncontrolled individuals unless I was being really well paid for it. I have a feeling that such a thing would be, while more legal than what is being done now, a nightmare in terms of working out contracts, terms and payment with hired creators. Especially if people find out that their work is being misused, or (actually, in this case) stolen for some other purpose.

[nohead]

All you would have to do is to take the actual artwork (mesh, textures) out of the package and put in a separate file which would be the file you sell.
The remaining parts of the package would of course be sent along with the file being sold (.package file are free to share right?) together with a simple little program that merges the .payfile with the .package.

Nifty .

[HystericalParoxysm]

Nohead, in the case of something like a static object - let's say it's a living room chair, that might be possible.  You could put together a file that, say, had the GUID, description, name, mesh, and textures all in it, and have that separate, with a program that would put together something for the end user.  But whether or not that program could be fundamentally separated from the game's coding...  I would think a program that could output working .package files would have to have a lot of information within itself about .packages to do that.  I'm not a programmer, but it seems like to give that end result you'd have to have bits and pieces in there that would be EA's stuff...  And if you're selling the stuff along with a program to package things as game content, I think that's still going to fall under the reverse-engineering type stuffs.

But for anything more complicated - anything that goes on a sim like the ever-popular Peggy, Rose, Raon, etc. hairs, the mesh cannot be separated from the original game's skeleton without losing the bone assignments (at least not by any method I know of) and if you lose those, the mesh is useless to the end user.  Anything hacked as well, I don't think you could possibly separate the hacky bits from the original game bits required and still be able to put it back together properly.

All in all, it's far too much effort for everyone involved - the paysites that would have to learn how to somehow do what has never been done with all the efforts of the free community, and for the end user, who would have to go in and put together every single item in a process that is far more effort for them with stuff they'd be paying for than getting free content and just using it.

[nohead]

It would actually not be very hard and it would not need any code written by EA to accomplish it either.

The interesting question though is would those files still be in the booty?
There is no EULA that says that .payfile's are free to share so that argument can't be used.

[missangelica]

It would actually not be very hard and it would not need any code written by EA to accomplish it either.

Um, no.  Just, no.  You've never looked what is inside of a package, have you?