Question

[cutiescoobies]

I really wonder if it would be such a good idea to get EA/Maxis into that at all.
Sure the EULA states that you cannot sell stuff, but it also says you cannot reverse engeneer and disassemble game contents. This means SimPE and all custom content will have to go too cuz from the beginning on noone was allowed to rip things apart. If the EULA should kick in, then it will as whole and not only the pay part! Then all content will have to leave the net, free or pay, mods as meshes and hacks. And we will be left bare bones with the game, bodyshop and Homecrafter and CC from only made with it.
And this would be like peeing in the wind. And a very high price for seeing those greedy Paysite owners to back off....

[keirra]

I really wonder if it would be such a good idea to get EA/Maxis into that at all.
Sure the EULA states that you cannot sell stuff, but it also says you cannot reverse engeneer and disassemble game contents. This means SimPE and all custom content will have to go too cuz from the beginning on noone was allowed to rip things apart. If the EULA should kick in, then it will as whole and not only the pay part! Then all content will have to leave the net, free or pay, mods as meshes and hacks. And we will be left bare bones with the game, bodyshop and Homecrafter and CC from only made with it.
And this would be like peeing in the wind. And a very high price for seeing those greedy Paysite owners to back off....

EA won't let that happen.  They know that cc is what keeps the game fresh and fun.

[arina]

I think the difference is that that would hurt the community, not help it. Everyone making stuff for the fun of it (whether that's the fun of making stuff or playing the game with that stuff), access to all of this content for anyone who plays the game and can go online - that means a happier community. People happy with the games will speak more highly of them than someone who doesn't, meaning their friends/readers/listeners will be more likely to buy it.

TS2 is (pretty obviously) a very open-ended game, no goals, few characters. So, extra content just allows it to more personal and customised. This improves the game, meaning more people buy it and are happy with it in the long term (this is really important for a game where you're expected to buy multiple expansion packs).

So, acting against paysites =  better for community = better for sales, whereas acting against cc-makers in general = worse for both.

The point of my post: I don't think we have to worry about EA going after SimPE etc. because this would be completely against their best interests.

[cutiescoobies]

Well, but that is exactly the point that gets ignored when people point on the EULA and run to EA to complain!
There is just black or white! The EULA WILL take effect on SimPE if it ever should take effect on pay sites. Cuz it states NO selling and NO reverse engeneering. This means SimPe and all custum Content is against the EULA.
It is one thing to share that stuff freely so that everyone has fun, another is to put pressure on EA about the EULA! The EULA states that already opening of the packages and changing them is against it, and so is SimPE and any programm that makes meshing and the insert of it into the game illegal.
You can't ask Maxis or EA to only make a part of the EULA valid and leave the rest untouched.... so EA goes after paysites, EA goes after SimPE and CC with is not an item made with BS or Homecrafter....
Endresult=no happy community cuz all is gone!
Share freely, take custumers away, yes.... involve Maxis/EA, no!
I'm not the first who is saying those things, but it seems it gets ignored all along the way.

[arina]

You can't ask Maxis or EA to only make a part of the EULA valid and leave the rest untouched....

I'm pretty sure EA can tell their lawyers which parts of their EULA to enforce and when. I really don't think it's illegal somewhere to disregard your own copyright/intellectual property? Your argument rests on someone other than EA sorting out the matter of the EULA for this game :S

What I'm saying is, if EA get rid of SimPE and SimPE-made cc, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Yes, they suck at testing their games, but they're not stupid, so they wouldn't do something that hurts them (or, they wouldn't actively, at least).

[JFederated]

Is SimPe really considered reverse engineering, tho?  I honestly don't know.  It seems more a tool that can only be used for TS2, like Homecrafter and Bodyshop.  And they aren't making money off of it or using it as is for other games or apps as far as I know.

If SimPe is reverse engineering, wouldn't mods and hacks also be?  Are they going to shut down people like Crammyboy who helped them to figure out the portal issue causing the NPC slowdown bug that shipped with the base game?  Paladin for revealing flags and such in SimCat?

Or people who make chairs for sims?  It's an interesting point raised, I just don't know how that stuff really works.   :oops:

[mando]

I have a feeling that the "reverse engineering" bit is in there more as a defense against ripping the code of the game off entirely and recreating your own "Sims" game for sale. For example, company A may see that the Sims is making a ton of money and instead of developing it's own outside code based on the idea of the Sims (which would be much more costly even if the idea is ripped off), they take EA's original code and try to monkey it out and reuse it to create their own game without permission.

Technically, hacks and the like would be reverse engineering of a sort, however I'm sure that EA knows that banning such a thing would be shooting themselves in the foot. Most programs like these help to keep players interested in buying and playing the Sims. I know that I would have lost interest a loooong time ago if I didn't have hacks to correct problems and create new gameplay features. Paysites, on the other hand, are taking money directly out of EA's pocket in that they are creating, for sale, a product that EA itself is trying to sell. The one is worse than the other, I think.

[JFederated]

Paysites, on the other hand, are taking money directly out of EA's pocket in that they are creating, for sale, a product that EA itself is trying to sell. The one is worse than the other, I think.

That's the part that gets me - paysites have been picking EA's pocket for years, lol.

I guess it's cheaper than paying employees to make content.

[Lorelei]

Paysites, on the other hand, are taking money directly out of EA's pocket in that they are creating, for sale, a product that EA itself is trying to sell. The one is worse than the other, I think.

That's the part that gets me - paysites have been picking EA's pocket for years, lol.

I guess it's cheaper than paying employees to make content.

I suspect that the custom content made by freesites is more than enough to help encourage interest in the Sims games.

I never paid for content while playing Sims 1, and have confessed to buying ONE donation set from 11dots, when what I would have far preferred to donate to her instead. I had no option to donate to show appreciation, and did not know about PMBD at the time. Of course, I found it four days later! (ARRRRR!!!! of annoyance goes here)

The custom content issue seems so cut and dried. As mando said, in what way are we misinterpreting the "non-commercial use" portion of the EULA?

All attempts to weasel out of that one are simply specious. I'm sorry, but if there is content that cannot be accessed without money exchanging hands, it is pay content, and commercial by definition, and no matter how weasely one is about trying to claim it is for bandwidth (there are free alternatives) or is a "donation" to support the site (a donation is something give without expectation of a gift in return; once donation money nets a donator an item no one else can have without donating, it is a sale), taking any money, in any amount, for Sims 2 game content is not allowed by EA's EULA.

I want to kick MAXIS in the seat of the pants for letting the camel stick his nose in the tent in the first place, because without that little caveat back in the days of Sims 1 that a small donation fee would be okay to defray bandwidth costs, paysite owners would not even have that much to point to in an attempt to justify their illegal financial screwing of the community as a whole.

Obviously, even the most expensive servers and bandwidth costs are more than covered by the amount of dosh sites like Peggy's, TSR, Rose and others rake in from the fans who don't know any better.

Why people do not read legal documents when presented with the opportunity to do so just amazes me. For god's sake, EA could have claimed a right to your first born, and you didn't even bother to check that out? And you compound the error by refusing to go email EA or read the EULA yourself?

I note that paysites have had as much opportunity to write EA as we have had, and whereas pro-freesite people have posted several emails from EA that make their feelings clear, I have yet to see one pro-paysite person produce a verifiable letter from EA that excuses their activities that are in defiance of the EULA.

In fact, we have seen paysite owners try to claim that the EA letters were Photoshopped (and other such crazy nonsense) rather than accepting THEY ARE WRONG. I think that amazes me most of all. They would rather pretend that someone went to all the trouble to mock up a letter from EA than acknowledge that THEY ARE WRONG.

How deluded does a person need to be, to come up with that?

The "my chilluns must be fed!" argument is my second-most favourite stupid pro-paysite argument. I fail to see why engaging in illegal activities is the best solution for adequately taking care of one's kids. Hopefully one would not sell drugs, or pirated software, to feed and clothe the chilluns. What values does that teach kids? Do as I say, not as I do? There are so many legal ways to make money from home, be it AVON or Tupperware, or being a professional bridal planner, organizer, personal assistant, babysitter, music teacher, proofreader, editor, et cetera, et cetera.

[Pescado]

Alternatively, there's always option of solving two problems at once and selling them.

[Lorelei]

Alternatively, there's always option of solving two problems at once and selling them.

But then you don't get to try A Modest Proposal Roast with barbeque!

[mando]

Alternatively, there's always option of solving two problems at once and selling them.

But then you don't get to try A Modest Proposal Roast with barbeque!

You're such a smarty pants, you Jonathan Swift dropper, you.

[HawkGirl]

The whole point I don't think people seem to be getting is A) What was done on the Sims 1 was done when the game was owned by Maxis, not EA. It is under new ownership now, and EA is quite a bit bigger and better equiped to handle legal battles than Maxis ever was. B) It doesn't matter if anyone thinks EA's TOS are illegal or not. It is a legal binding contract "YOU" agree too. No one twisted your arm to agree to the terms for installing their game. If they ask for your first born child and you agree to it, you have to give them your first born child. It's a contract. Just ask any woman that has decided to be a surrogate mother and then decided they wanted to keep the child. They have never been allowed too. Contract laws are some of the strictest laws in many parts of the world. Contractual law and copyright law are 2 totally different things. These paysites want to pound their chest and say my copyright, well good luck trying to fight a contract with a copyright lawyer...I'm sure he/she won't mind taking a few thousand from you first before they tell you need a contract lawyer and by the way, you may very well own copyright to your own work, but you don't have a leg to stand on because you agreed by contract that everything that goes into EA games, belongs to EA which makes you no different than a ghost artist that works for a well known artist and that artist signs off on their work. No glory and recognition for ghost artists.

Now they've done the let's make everyone paranoid thing and say they are going to go after free sites. EA doesn't want to go after free sites they are doing just what EA wants sharing the content for free. EA knows about SIMPE, they also know about several mods/hacks, etc...The difference is freesites are not dipping their hand in the till. Oh then there is the argument of everything SIMPE etc...goes against the TOS.

Oh well, once again it is up to EA to choose which parts of their OWN contract they wish to enforce and which parts they don't. I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear anyone try that argument in court, but your honor they're doing the same thing, their just not charging for it. It's not fair they go after just us! Wahhh! I'm quite sure those that were sharing music and got singled out felt the same way, but that argument didn't hold water in court. No money has been made off of SIMPE, where I went to school 0-0 still =0. No money to be made there. But dipping your hands in the till and taking money from EA's wallet without their permission, without a licensing agreement is quite a different story.

Oh and PS: Ignorance of a contract you agree too is 0 grounds for violation of that contract.

[Zazazu]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall and hear anyone try that argument in court, but your honor they're doing the same thing, their just not charging for it. It's not fair they go after just us! Wahhh! I'm quite sure those that were sharing music and got singled out felt the same way, but that argument didn't hold water in court.

Any lawyer stupid enough to make that statement couldn't have passed the bar. The EULA clearly states that making content with their tools and distributing it is allowed, just not charging.

[prattle]

EA is involved whether they want to be or not. They got involved when they made the game. Their views on paysites (though it could be very much debated how much of this is Maxis and how much is EA, or how the heck we started with a game made by Maxis and ended up with the Sims Division of EA to begin with) have changed from moderately supportive of paysites in the Sims 1 days, to ambivalent, to moderately disapproving of paysites these days. Why they've changed their mind, I couldn't tell you, but I could make a few guesses.
As for "OMG EA's going to go after SimPE!", I also doubt it because of how much custom content helps sales of Sims games, but I don't know how EA feels about the program. The object creator for Sims 1, Transmogrifier, wasn't made by Maxis, but was approved by them and had their terms of use attached. Even if EA does have some grudge against SimPE, at this point they certainly couldn't stop custom object creation in Sims 2 even if they wanted to do so.