Official SimCity Mod Guidelines Are Highly Restrictive

Recommended Videos

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
major_chaos said:
meaningful is the keyword here. I could make a hat, (and I don't know jack about modding) and it would not improve or change the game in any way. Not to mention that shitty hats/skins fall into the realm of something you could totally do within the guildlines that everyone is complaining about so they are hardly evidence that Valve is so much better.
Except that if you make a hat in TF2 you can sell it and get paid.

Valve allow you to sell your mods on their game!

So it doesn't "fall into the realm of something you could totally do within the guildlines that everyone is complaining about"

In Simcity EA will own all the rights to your mod, and can take it and sell it as DLC for Simcity without consulting or crediting you for the creation (and use your work in their other games and franchises as well without crediting or paying you.)
 

Colt47

New member
Oct 31, 2012
1,065
0
0
At this point EA is basically an American version of Capcom. As far as I can tell no one but space aliens uses Origin, and the people who do own their games at my University are playing them on consoles where the DRM scheme is moot and mods are near non-existent.
 

AntiChrist

New member
Jul 17, 2009
238
0
0
major_chaos said:
These are the least defensible, but also the most standard. I'm fairly sure that "we own your mods" isn't an uncommon policy.
So once again all I see is people overreacting because "warble blarble EA is SATUN
I don't see how this sort of thing being a common practice makes it any less of an issue. On the contrary, I'd say that it makes discontent against such practices even more warranted.
 
Mar 9, 2012
250
0
0
So what I get from this is that EA basically says: "No. Don't", but does so in the most needlessly long and complicated way possible.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
major_chaos said:
This is comedy gold. Because I enjoy arguing debating with steam fanboys customers I defy you to name a valve game with meaningful mods that isn't half life. (and no the 8 zillion hats for TF2, CS and DoTA2 don't even remotely count, nor do the shitty player made maps from portal 2 or the zero effort texture swaps that make up 99.99% of the L4D2 workshop)
So a mod that isn't a part of the TF2, CS and DoTA2 Workshop, (where modders can potentially get get thousands if their mod gets picked by Valve, unlike EA) the Left 4 Dead 2 Workshop, the Portal 2 Perpetual Testing Initiative or Half Life. (note I'm assuming you mean the universe and not the Source and GoldSrc engines)

OK.

Source Engine (Some were later released as full games)

Garry's Mod, using the Source Engine.

Trouble In Terrorist Town, (using Garry's Mod)

Dear Ester

The Stanley Parable

Age of Chivalry


GoldSrc Engine: (Some were later released as full games)

Alien Swarm

Natural Selection

CounterStrike

Team Fortress

And those are the famous ones, there are plenty more like Day of Defeat and The Hidden as well.
 

Glaice

New member
Mar 18, 2013
577
0
0
@Ed130: Cry of Fear is another for GoldSrc, Black Mesa is one other for Source as well.
 

Danial

New member
Apr 7, 2010
304
0
0
major_chaos said:
This is comedy gold. Because I enjoy arguing debating with steam fanboys customers I defy you to name a valve game with meaningful mods that isn't half life. (and no the 8 zillion hats for TF2, CS and DoTA2 don't even remotely count, nor do the shitty player made maps from portal 2 or the zero effort texture swaps that make up 99.99% of the L4D2 workshop)
"Name one game they let you mod, just don't mention arguably the most important game in modding history because that would be bad for my argument, also forget I mentioned a all the games they let you mod.. because? Hats or something I'm not good at this."

I don't care in the slightest about EA vs Valve as PC gaming is pretty much dead to me, but your argument makes no sense. The person you quoted's point wasn't about the quality of the mods but the fact that they let you. And hes right, With the exception of the PVP games they pretty much let you do what ever the hell you want to their games, and if you do want to mod one of their PVP titles, guess what! just make your own in half like like everyone else did.

I'm going to have to side with the "fanboy" as you so fan-boyishly spat, while i don't think these restrictions are anything new (the top one is really open for abuse mind since iirc they consider all SC games multiplayer) EA do have a track record of being shit heads to modders (see ME3). If you back your modding community rather than putting silly restrictions on them you usually end up the winner. How many extra sales did Blizzard pull in because of DOTA or how many new game developers and money for Valve were created by mod's like Gary's Mod or counter strike. Hell before they started cracking down EA were good at it, Christ knows how much time i spent in Dragon age because of the mods, made me rush out to buy DA2... which admittedly was dull.

Still this is the internet so let's not let facts get in the way of snide sarcasm, If you wanna point to Valve not being as pure as people say they are point to the bloody DOTA shit. Anyway back to Battlefield 4.
 

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,164
0
0
Good day Sirs, Madams and anyone in between, I, am a modder. (For clarification, I've been part of the OFP/ArmA modding community for a good while now, and have made mods for a few other games as well)

I see a lot of... shall we say "individuals who's strength of opinion is inversely proportional to their understanding of the situation" here, so allow me to explain these terms and conditions.

Mods must not jeopardize the integrity of the gameplay or harm the experience of others. Mods that affect the simulation for multiplayer games and multiplayer features, such as leaderboards or trading with other players, are not allowed.
Basically, don't make something that's designed exclusively to break the system, ie, a client mod that would allow a player to join an unmodded server and have an unfair advantage. I haven't played simcity, so I don't know how that would work with their always-online requirement, so this might be a much bigger deal than I've made it out to be.

Mods must not infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret or other intellectual property right of any third party and will not include content that is unlawful, tortious, defamatory, obscene, invasive of the privacy of another person, threatening, harassing, abusive, hateful, racist or otherwise objectionable or inappropriate. SimCity has an age rating of ESRB Everyone 10+ and PEGI 7, and similar ratings from other ratings boards around the world. EA requires that Mods not include any material that would not be allowed under these ratings.
In laymans terms: We don't want a media shitstorm from hot coffee mods and Games Workshop throwing lawyers at us. Yeah, it's a bit draconian, but not the end of the world.

Mods may not modify any .com, .exe, .dll, .so or other executable files.
Everyone seems to think this is a huge deal. It isn't. Modifying these sorts of files isn't too common outside cracks. The only thing this really stops is mods that fundamentally change the nature of the engine (for example, something like ZDooM).

The terms and conditions of SimCity EULA and EA's Terms of Service are specifically incorporated into this policy by this reference. In the event that the terms of this policy are in conflict with the terms of the SimCity EULA or EA's Terms of Service, the terms of this Policy shall supersede and govern over any such conflicting terms.
Completely meaningless legalize filler. Presumably they wanted 5 points on their list because it's a nice round number.

To maintain the integrity of SimCity and ensure the best possible gaming experience for our players, EA reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to revoke permission to use, distribute or make Mods at any time, to disable any Mod within SimCity and to take disciplinary action against players who harm the experience of others.
Pretty much just teeth bearing.

Now, this is the big one:
Distribution of your Mod in any form constitutes a grant by you to EA of an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, sub-licensable right to use, copy, modify and distribute that Mod (and derivatives of that Mod), and use your name if we choose to, for any purpose and through any means, and without obligation to pay you anything, obtain your approval, or give you credit.
Basically, if you make something, EA can do whatever they like with it. This is generally considered to be a "dick move". They can also pretend to be you while doing so. So, in theory, EA can take your mod, turn it into a 160 page essay entitled "I Believe Hitler was right and I also have improperly sized and diseased genitalia" then publish it in a scientific journal, citing you as the sole author.

Now, it's more likely that the whole "without your permission" thing is just a way around the tendency of modders to unexpectedly disappear from existence entirely without a moments notice, but it's ripe for abuse, if anyone's going to try and abuse an agreement like that, it's EA.



Interesting to note though, is that there's no non-commercial clause, which is usually pretty common in these sorts of agreements. Probably just an oversight, but make of that what you will.
 

PainInTheAssInternet

The Ship Magnificent
Dec 30, 2011
826
0
0
I am curious; is there any overlap between people who are capable of modding computers to any significant degree and people who play SimCity 5?

I'm not trying to be snooty about it, but there seemed to be a universal revulsion of this game that revives every time EA mentions it.

Snooty Bit
Not to mention that they would most likely be aware of Sim City 4 or Tropica 4, both of which are more functional and more fun than SimCity 5 could ever hope to be.
 

Glaice

New member
Mar 18, 2013
577
0
0
As a modder, I am offended by that last clause EA stated. If I make something with game assets, it is mine not the company's work.
 

Loop Stricken

Covered in bees!
Jun 17, 2009
4,723
0
0
That's a shame. I've been watching Sips from the Yogscast play through the Sim cCity expansion whose name escapes me, and it was looking more and more enticing.

... don't think I'll get it now, just because fuck EA.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
major_chaos said:
Mods must not infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret or other intellectual property right of any third party and will not include content that is unlawful, tortious, defamatory, obscene, invasive of the privacy of another person, threatening, harassing, abusive, hateful, racist or otherwise objectionable or inappropriate. SimCity has an age rating of ESRB Everyone 10+ and PEGI 7, and similar ratings from other ratings boards around the world. EA requires that Mods not include any material that would not be allowed under these ratings.
This is absolutely 100% justified. Blame the overzealous copyright culture for the first half of this and the retarded pond scum who sued Rockstar over hot coffee for the second half. Don't blame EA for not wanting to lose stupid amounts of money on frivolous suits.
It isn't really. For one, the ESRB has no say in anything related to mods or interactions with other people (which is why so many games open with "Online Interactions not Rated by ESRB").

Second, and more importantly EA can't be held liable for any of that unless they claim responsibility for it.

(And because it's been brought up twice now: Hot Coffee wasn't a fan made mod; it was content left in the game by Rockstar made accessible by a mod. That is what made Rockstar liable.

For comparison, there exist a number of very explicit porn mods for Oblivion and Skyrim, yet nobody is suing Bethesda over it.)

The only reason this clause is necessary is because EA is claiming full ownership of anything the modders make, which itself is a questionable standard to say the least.

Mods may not modify any .com, .exe, .dll, .so or other executable files.
Again, sounds to me like EA protecting themselves from stupid people, in this case morons who get viruses from fake mods and then blame EA.
That's just a standard EULA term Blizzard created based on their legal victory against Gliderbot.
Legally, it's just to remind folks that EA owns the base code of their games and not to fuck it or the code of their system.

If it seeks to protect people from their own stupidity, it's a happy side-effect at best.

In practice, it eliminates total conversions from the equation, but most common types of mods will work fine without editing the game's internal dlls and executable.

The other two
These are the least defensible, but also the most standard. I'm fairly sure that "we own your mods" isn't an uncommon policy.
Some standards are just plain stupid.
The "we claim ownership of everything you do" never sat well with me. If the mod uses unique assets from the game, well, fine; That's a directly derivative work.

But not all mods lift assets from the game, some just plug into the code.
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
TLDNR, because as soon as I read that title I realized:
"You can't make any mod that's awesome, because our own work is shittier and we want to wring a lot of money out of expansions later on! Also, we hate you for trying to make fun stuff for free, you talented bastards! Yours truly, EA"
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Wow, uhhh...that's funny. I could have sworn the point of mods was that you mess with the game as much as you want or is humanly possible. Well, trust EA not to get a clue. Another one bites the dust...
 

Fdzzaigl

New member
Mar 31, 2010
822
0
0
Well it's easy: time to mod those modding guidelines.

In other words: screw them. Make what you want and upload it somewhere else.