For those that mentioned about competitors for The Sims; if I remember correctly, Maxis (?) has a patent that is valid for 20 yrs that prevents competitors from coming in to doing something like this. Once the 20 yrs are up, I think The Sims will start to have real competition, but I don't know.
Maybe if there is real competition, EA will rebuild their integrity with The Sims so as not to lose players to their competitors. Or.....they'll let The Sims just ride off into the sunset and focus on other games, allowing the life simulation torch to be passed on to other companies. Or....I could be utterly wrong and need to get some sleep.
i think you are a little missunderstood, cuz i already see someone working on a life simulator and he don't looks like worried about anything. http://modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=563014
he already started to work on it and is working to finish the prototype to kickstart it.
could be good your check your source cuz i don't recall have reading about someone holding patent over a game genrer maybe you are missunderstood what peoples can't do is making something which can be part of the sims patent like creater characters and call it sims, or use very simlike term.
Well I'm sorry I don't have the exact date and years the patent holds so it could be already expired. Just disregard everything I wrote.
> @AmaraRena said: > Is lack of transparency is a good thing for Maxis / EA? > NO. > > Is it okay to boycott a product that you are unhappy with? If yes, is it okay to talk about this? > Yes. > > And in regards to the current state of TS4 game, do you "get it"? If you do, what specifically about this game makes you keep playing? If you don't, why not? > > Count me among those who refuse to buy this game. I continue to frequent the forums because I hope that will not always be the case. However, I do NOT see myself ever buying this game until it has seasons, weather, holidays, pets and the supernatural lifestates (witch and vampire at a bare minimum). But I also hesitate even then because I hear the gameplay itself is so bad. Again, I keep tuning in to listen for and advocate changes.
Good because judging by your avi, your Sims 3 looks so good
For those that mentioned about competitors for The Sims; if I remember correctly, Maxis (?) has a patent that is valid for 20 yrs that prevents competitors from coming in to doing something like this. Once the 20 yrs are up, I think The Sims will start to have real competition, but I don't know.
Maybe if there is real competition, EA will rebuild their integrity with The Sims so as not to lose players to their competitors. Or.....they'll let The Sims just ride off into the sunset and focus on other games, allowing the life simulation torch to be passed on to other companies. Or....I could be utterly wrong and need to get some sleep.
That patent could very well be just on the name and a few minor things, not on life simulators in general. After all, Second Life is a life simulator, and they have every right to make their game.
There is, or was, a recent lawsuit against Zynga for Copyright infringement, which is not a patent, for copying "expressive elements" of The Sims Social. However, there are many games out there that could be compared to Sim City-like games without problems, including that one on Steam that seems to be quite popular.
EA releasing a buggy product is not "taking a stand," though. It's a company refusing to fix their product because, well, they had unpaid labor taking up their slack so consumers bought their game despite the problems, and used other products to fix them. That is hardly taking a stand, though -- that's a cost cutting measure that they really cannot count on in current games.
Thanks for clarifying. Everything I say, is disputed. I will just leave quietly for now. Have a great day!
Your original assertion was that protesting is useless because it doesn't change things; and you gave as a example that you had protested many things in your younger years, and yet nothing changed. But, as I pointed out to you, there were changes, due largely in part to the tone and nature of the protests. Now, you're offended because people agree that protests change things...and therefore they don't agree with your assertion that protesting not only doesn't change things, we should stop doing it, because it's useless.
If you choose to get your feelings hurt because people didn't take your side in this discussion, that's on you. I should not be surprised, since this is how you usually react when things don't go your way. And, I'm sorry if you perceive this as a personal attack...by the way the comment about returning Vietnam vets was more of a generic "you" than a personal you. Sorry you perceived that as a personal attack also.
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/kent-state @jarsie9 This is in my opinion what brought the protests in the VietNam war to a head, not the little boycotts or protests that I could do in a small Massachusetts college.
But since I have a different opinion then you do on anything I post, then I will not answer your posts, and I suggest you do not answer mine, as you seem to have a problem with anything I post unless I am agreeing with you, as you state I am doing so please block me and I will block you. Thank you.
I want to be on the list I have the Base Game and Go To Work and two EP's. I did not buy the last two and do not plan on buying any more until I see how they proceed with SIms 4. I want back to Sims 3 and I like it more things to do. So not buying anymore of SIms 4. The Halloween pack seems rather boring to me in comparison to Supernatural.
There is a big difference between protesting a product and protesting a situation. They are not one in the same. The general public sees product protesting as a reason to reconsider a product if they were thinking of buying the product. It is why consumers also look at consumer ratings of product and tend to steer clear of the products that are badly rated.
People cannot rate a situation. You are not able to use a situation like you use a product. Situation protests can take years to be effective if they ever get effective - but product can literally be wiped off of the market if enough people see it as a bad product. When you invest in a product are you going to try the 5 star rated product or the one that is 1 star rated full of complaints. That is the difference. When consumers show a product does not deliver and other numbers of people agree - only a fool would go ahead and try the product anyway.
You cannot put a war or even the killing of the students at Kent state in the same argument. Those thing do not bring back the dead or fix it - so I really would not even put them in the same argument.
Post edited by Writin_Reg on
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
afar i remember about the Zygna and the game not was because they made a life simulator but because they used some the sims aspect in they game, that is when ea issued then, that is the problem when release a game from the sam genre the right thing to do is make him more "unique", and avoid make too much reference to others games from the same genre, while most of the game companies really don't care( the case of have 99999 mobas, and many games have same mechanic) some companies like EA care and can try to exploit any way to take down then.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
There is a big difference between protesting a product and protesting a situation. They are not one in the same. The general public sees product protesting as a reason to reconsider a product if they were thinking of buying the product. It is why consumers also look at consumer ratings of product and tend to steer clear of the products that are badly rated.
Which is why EA pays for people to post positive ratings and messages on various sites.
> @Evil_One said: > Writin_Reg wrote: » > > There is a big difference between protesting a product and protesting a situation. They are not one in the same. The general public sees product protesting as a reason to reconsider a product if they were thinking of buying the product. It is why consumers also look at consumer ratings of product and tend to steer clear of the products that are badly rated. > > > > > Which is why EA pays for people to post positive ratings and messages on various sites.
Yep. They got busted doing that for simcity when it came out. People admited to posting positive stuff for money. Plus you have employees of EA who troll the forums and various sites to shoot down anyone who shows any discontent. They are pretty ovious to. Its like the really bad undercover cop at a high school trying to score "maryjane". Its laughable.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
if i'm not wrong(or maybe was the opposite) harry potter already somehow was a rip-off from other book or was someone already made a harry potter like book, few years ago.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
I'm actually not sure Meyers' could have won (or can win) a lawsuit. The names are different, the universe is different, and the premise is completely different. You could always make the argument that taking inspiration from something isn't intellectual theft. Especially since Twilight has a lot of parallels to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both women made a mint, either way.
Edit: To get on topic, really, whether someone could legally make a life simulation or not isn't the main issue -- EA could take whatever claim they have and sue and with corporate lawyers, it doesn't cost them much, whereas whomever they're suing, unless they also have lawyers on the payroll, would end up having to pay a lot out of pocket. This more than anything probably keeps small companies from even trying.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
if i'm not wrong(or maybe was the opposite) harry potter already somehow was a rip-off from other book or was someone already made a harry potter like book, few years ago.
You're not wrong. I can't remember off the top of my head which books, but I know there were allegations against J.K. too. That's where it gets hairy - trying to decipher what is an original idea vs what is a rip off - after all, there is really no such thing as originality. Everyone has written about love, death, witches, vampires, ect.
As it relates to the sims, I wrote a post on the previous page talking about how difficult I personally thought it would be for another company to do a sims type game. Not because of the life simulation part - EA can't sue you for making a game where little people pee and sleep and eat - but because of the parts that EA/Maxis has a 15 year head start on perfecting. They've release 4 versions of the game so far - some versions have a "comfort" need, some have toddlers, one has an open-world, they all have similish, ect - and anyone making a similar game would have to avoid doing things in the same way EA did them in 4 different versions of the game. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's way more complex than even Cities/Skylines where any similarities could be written off as common to all city simulation games. Same with Second Life, which is conceptual much different than the Sims, regardless of the life simulation aspects. I wouldn't be signing pledges if I could get the same enjoyment playing Second Life as I do from playing the Sims.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
I'm actually not sure Meyers' could have won (or can win) a lawsuit. The names are different, the universe is different, and the premise is completely different. You could always make the argument that taking inspiration from something isn't intellectual theft. Especially since Twilight has a lot of parallels to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both women made a mint, either way.
Edit: To get on topic, really, whether someone could legally make a life simulation or not isn't the main issue -- EA could take whatever claim they have and sue and with corporate lawyers, it doesn't cost them much, whereas whomever they're suing, unless they also have lawyers on the payroll, would end up having to pay a lot out of pocket. This more than anything probably keeps small companies from even trying.
Meyers could definitely win. There are total paragraphs in 50 Shades that were straight lifted from Twilight, the verbiage barely changes. Meyers just doesn't want to associate her own books with 50 Shades because it's embarrassing.
And on topic, agree with you. EA doesn't need to win anything, all they need to do is tie up the poor indie company or developer in court until the money runs out. That's a threat that most people that want to continue working in their job field take very seriously.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
if i'm not wrong(or maybe was the opposite) harry potter already somehow was a rip-off from other book or was someone already made a harry potter like book, few years ago.
You're not wrong. I can't remember off the top of my head which books, but I know there were allegations against J.K. too. That's where it gets hairy - trying to decipher what is an original idea vs what is a rip off - after all, there is really no such thing as originality. Everyone has written about love, death, witches, vampires, ect.
As it relates to the sims, I wrote a post on the previous page talking about how difficult I personally thought it would be for another company to do a sims type game. Not because of the life simulation part - EA can't sue you for making a game where little people pee and sleep and eat - but because of the parts that EA/Maxis has a 15 year head start on perfecting. They've release 4 versions of the game so far - some versions have a "comfort" need, some have toddlers, one has an open-world, they all have similish, ect - and anyone making a similar game would have to avoid doing things in the same way EA did them in 4 different versions of the game. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's way more complex than even Cities/Skylines where any similarities could be written off as common to all city simulation games. Same with Second Life, which is conceptual much different than the Sims, regardless of the life simulation aspects. I wouldn't be signing pledges if I could get the same enjoyment playing Second Life as I do from playing the Sims.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
I'm actually not sure Meyers' could have won (or can win) a lawsuit. The names are different, the universe is different, and the premise is completely different. You could always make the argument that taking inspiration from something isn't intellectual theft. Especially since Twilight has a lot of parallels to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both women made a mint, either way.
Edit: To get on topic, really, whether someone could legally make a life simulation or not isn't the main issue -- EA could take whatever claim they have and sue and with corporate lawyers, it doesn't cost them much, whereas whomever they're suing, unless they also have lawyers on the payroll, would end up having to pay a lot out of pocket. This more than anything probably keeps small companies from even trying.
Meyers could definitely win. There are total paragraphs in 50 Shades that were straight lifted from Twilight, the verbiage barely changes. Meyers just doesn't want to associate her own books with 50 Shades because it's embarrassing.
And on topic, agree with you. EA doesn't need to win anything, all they need to do is tie up the poor indie company or developer in court until the money runs out. That's a threat that most people that want to continue working in their job field take very seriously.
well it's so sad, for now i'm waiting for identity release he really looks promissor as a mix of life simulator and mmo but in much less scale, i really don't mind not being single player, all i want is a fun game and maybe in future if the game turn in a sucess they can work in single player aspect.
in the end what is matter is the power of $$ and greedy.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
I'm actually not sure Meyers' could have won (or can win) a lawsuit. The names are different, the universe is different, and the premise is completely different. You could always make the argument that taking inspiration from something isn't intellectual theft. Especially since Twilight has a lot of parallels to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both women made a mint, either way.
Edit: To get on topic, really, whether someone could legally make a life simulation or not isn't the main issue -- EA could take whatever claim they have and sue and with corporate lawyers, it doesn't cost them much, whereas whomever they're suing, unless they also have lawyers on the payroll, would end up having to pay a lot out of pocket. This more than anything probably keeps small companies from even trying.
Meyers could definitely win. There are total paragraphs in 50 Shades that were straight lifted from Twilight, the verbiage barely changes. Meyers just doesn't want to associate her own books with 50 Shades because it's embarrassing.
And on topic, agree with you. EA doesn't need to win anything, all they need to do is tie up the poor indie company or developer in court until the money runs out. That's a threat that most people that want to continue working in their job field take very seriously.
Huh, source? From what I understand (and disclaimer, I've not read either), James wrote a fan fiction with all names the same, then changed the names. I seriously doubt Random House (her publisher) would have let the book stand after something like outright plagiarism was uncovered. If in fact there were paragraphs taken from the book, RH could sue James.
Meyers actually seems to be supportive of James, at least in interviews.
Edit: It also makes me wonder if a small publisher, if sued by EA, would have a decent case against them. The US legal system is such a mess when it comes to this, but possibly a small company from a different country would be able to at least get something launched.
I'm not sure how patent law works, though, especially when it comes to patents on intellectual property.
and i forget another promissor game to come this year is fallout 4, while is a game post apocalypse you will be able to rebuild town and populate it and be able to hire employers defense, gonna need to build energy and food sources and will be sandobx and after you finish the main campaing you can keep playing while take care of the towns you rebuilds( you can rebuild and protect more than one).
maybe that can be a signal from bethesda can take a interest in the future to make a life simulate game, i would love to see companys like bethesda and paradox and some indy and even maybe others bigs like blizzard or rockstead or maybe even ubisoft step on that, more different visions for this genre can be very refreshing and maybe finally ea and maxis stop with the circle of lazyness and greed due to "being the only ones" doing that.
most of our problems come from that as long none other is doing it then they can keep pulling more and more unfinished and lazy works at ours hands.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
I'm actually not sure Meyers' could have won (or can win) a lawsuit. The names are different, the universe is different, and the premise is completely different. You could always make the argument that taking inspiration from something isn't intellectual theft. Especially since Twilight has a lot of parallels to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both women made a mint, either way.
Edit: To get on topic, really, whether someone could legally make a life simulation or not isn't the main issue -- EA could take whatever claim they have and sue and with corporate lawyers, it doesn't cost them much, whereas whomever they're suing, unless they also have lawyers on the payroll, would end up having to pay a lot out of pocket. This more than anything probably keeps small companies from even trying.
Meyers could definitely win. There are total paragraphs in 50 Shades that were straight lifted from Twilight, the verbiage barely changes. Meyers just doesn't want to associate her own books with 50 Shades because it's embarrassing.
And on topic, agree with you. EA doesn't need to win anything, all they need to do is tie up the poor indie company or developer in court until the money runs out. That's a threat that most people that want to continue working in their job field take very seriously.
Huh, source? From what I understand (and disclaimer, I've not read either), James wrote a fan fiction with all names the same, then changed the names. I seriously doubt Random House (her publisher) would have let the book stand after something like outright plagiarism was uncovered. If in fact there were paragraphs taken from the book, RH could sue James.
Meyers actually seems to be supportive of James, at least in interviews.
Edit: It also makes me wonder if a small publisher, if sued by EA, would have a decent case against them. The US legal system is such a mess when it comes to this, but possibly a small company from a different country would be able to at least get something launched.
I'm not sure how patent law works, though, especially when it comes to patents on intellectual property.
Oopsie. I wrote it wrong. What I meant was that 50 Shades originated as Twilight fanfic, using the same names and setting. To get it published, James had to change the story enough to make it seem like a completely original story, but she didn't change it enough. She kept complete paragraphs from her original fanfic that used all Meyers characters and setting, which makes it obvious that her characters were not original. They were Meyers characters. James just changed the names and eye colors. That doesn't work in court.
If Meyers wasn't a supportive author and was a GRRM type, she could've sued and easily won. You can't write fanfiction based on someone else's characters, put it all over the internet for everyone to read and then just change the names (leaving the verbiage the same) to get it published unless the author doesn't mind you using their characters. Meyers didn't mind. Lots and lots of other authors do mind. Like I said, I can't write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" because it's obviously based on someone else's character. Parody is the only exception.
You make an interesting point about international law. I don't know enough about that particular topic, but it would be interesting to see what happened if a Sims competitor came out of a country that doesn't have "open to interpretation" laws. I imagine EA would somehow try to stop it from getting distributed, but it does open some fun law doors.
Just so you know EA has the Sims game with full copyright protection and if you notice it is Trade Marked as well - see the little TM in a circle on every box - that is a TM stamp. TM are good forever basically and will always belong to them. Copyright are good until they start selling them - up to 70 years and can be renewed by them. Patents is a whole thing with different number of years depending on the product. Some patents are also controlled by other government agencies - like medications are controlled under the Food and Drug Admin. agency in the USA and different rules apply to meds and even food stuff. Different things that can be patented often have different numbers of years that product can be patented - but believe me if one company is smart enough to patent, trademark, and copyright their products other companies are going to think twice before trying to wiggle into that territory. People can work all they want on making a Sims game and EA will do nothing just like they did with Zygna - as it does not count until it goes live on the market - that is when their legal team goes Berzerk on the creators heads. As long as a person makes something like a game or movie or even book for just their own use it is fine - it can only be called into legalities once it hit the open market. Lots of us know about the project over on modthesims - I know certain Gurus who even sometimes post on mts so they know. But there is nothing anyone can do as long as that person has not put the game out there for the public to use. That is when they cross over into the dangerous territory. EA even let Zygna have The Ville up for a couple weeks before they came down on them. It was pulled rather swiftly and left million hanging on facebook. I knew it was going to happen the minute I saw the game. Looked a lot like Sims 1 even a Bob and Betty Newbie house same everything. i saw that and knew Zygna was in deep you know what. But it never even got to court because they reached an agreement with EA out of court and pulled the game. It was all EA must have wanted. So yes any studio can make a game like the Sims and invest millions - they just have issues getting the game out and avoiding any simularities to The Sims what so ever. Simulation games any one can make - they just can't do a Sims game.
That is like arthors with books - take like Harry Potter - I am sure lots of people have good ideas to add to the HP story - but the fact JK Rowling can have your head on a platter if you tried making it public and they would win make most sensible people not want to spend years writing the book then trying to get it published. For one no publisher would touch it. Never mind even if you self published JKR own the rights to it and technically you could not even give it away.
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
I'm actually not sure Meyers' could have won (or can win) a lawsuit. The names are different, the universe is different, and the premise is completely different. You could always make the argument that taking inspiration from something isn't intellectual theft. Especially since Twilight has a lot of parallels to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both women made a mint, either way.
Edit: To get on topic, really, whether someone could legally make a life simulation or not isn't the main issue -- EA could take whatever claim they have and sue and with corporate lawyers, it doesn't cost them much, whereas whomever they're suing, unless they also have lawyers on the payroll, would end up having to pay a lot out of pocket. This more than anything probably keeps small companies from even trying.
Meyers could definitely win. There are total paragraphs in 50 Shades that were straight lifted from Twilight, the verbiage barely changes. Meyers just doesn't want to associate her own books with 50 Shades because it's embarrassing.
And on topic, agree with you. EA doesn't need to win anything, all they need to do is tie up the poor indie company or developer in court until the money runs out. That's a threat that most people that want to continue working in their job field take very seriously.
Huh, source? From what I understand (and disclaimer, I've not read either), James wrote a fan fiction with all names the same, then changed the names. I seriously doubt Random House (her publisher) would have let the book stand after something like outright plagiarism was uncovered. If in fact there were paragraphs taken from the book, RH could sue James.
Meyers actually seems to be supportive of James, at least in interviews.
Edit: It also makes me wonder if a small publisher, if sued by EA, would have a decent case against them. The US legal system is such a mess when it comes to this, but possibly a small company from a different country would be able to at least get something launched.
I'm not sure how patent law works, though, especially when it comes to patents on intellectual property.
Oopsie. I wrote it wrong. What I meant was that 50 Shades originated as Twilight fanfic, using the same names and setting. To get it published, James had to change the story enough to make it seem like a completely original story, but she didn't change it enough. She kept complete paragraphs from her original fanfic that used all Meyers characters and setting, which makes it obvious that her characters were not original. They were Meyers characters. James just changed the names and eye colors. That doesn't work in court.
If Meyers wasn't a supportive author and was a GRRM type, she could've sued and easily won. You can't write fanfiction based on someone else's characters, put it all over the internet for everyone to read and then just change the names (leaving the verbiage the same) to get it published unless the author doesn't mind you using their characters. Meyers didn't mind. Lots and lots of other authors do mind. Like I said, I can't write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" because it's obviously based on someone else's character. Parody is the only exception.
You make an interesting point about international law. I don't know enough about that particular topic, but it would be interesting to see what happened if a Sims competitor came out of a country that doesn't have "open to interpretation" laws. I imagine EA would somehow try to stop it from getting distributed, but it does open some fun law doors.
I didn't think her fanfic was edited much -- but I don't think that's illegal. She changed the names, and she apparently is a bad enough writer that the characters, while inspired by Twilight, were different. Different characters, including personalities, different universe, different scenario. Leaving out Meyers, Random House, if they thought plagiarism had happened, would have sued James for breach of contract. While her fanfic and her published works are pretty much the same, the fanfic, aside from the names, are different. 50 Shades of Grey is not about vampires, not about weird love between a 100+ year old man and a teenage girl, and doesn't have half-vampire children running around. You can get inspiration from something and use it and not have it be intellectual theft.
"Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" is too close, and an obvious rip off. If you were to write about a young man and his affair with the sister of his best friend, who hooked up with their other best friend and went to boarding school together, it wouldn't matter if it started off as a Harry Potter fanfic.
It makes you question whether any art is actually original. Dragon Age: Origins borrowed heavily from a few works that I can think of, including GRRM and LOTR.
Edit: Actually, that is the last I'll say on this as it's meandering off topic. So to bring it back on topic, I would wonder what about the Sims actually could be patented, and what an independent publisher could do to get around that.
I've noticed that other games are borrowing from the Sims. FO4's character creation seems close with the pushing and pulling of the face, and the building of settlements could be quite interesting, though different. Hopefully it's a good sandbox.
We Spanish speakers and simmers continue being mad at EA for not listening to us. We plan to continue boycotting the sales. We aren't going to buy anything unless Ea listen to all of us. There's hardly any activity in the spanish forum, but you can follow our campaign in Twitter.
Years ago, I made the mistake of buying a game called "Singles" which is an adult only game and the premise was to have two characters live together, develop a relationship and eventually get them to have sex. The game ended when the couple got engaged and married.
It was Sims like, but not quite. The sex was done under blankets, you couldn't see anything, and they lived in an apartment. There was a vaccuum cleaner that they could use to vacuum the floor; the appliances were similar, and the game play was, a bit...but there was no family aspect at all. The game was from Japan, as I recall. The language was gibberish; but it didn't sound like Simlish. I think the reason that company wasn't sued was because it was an extremely limited market, plus it was no threat to The Sims franchise.
So, yes, I think it's possible, but the problem would be getting the players to accept the differences in game play, when they're used to playing a Sim one way and the game makes them play their Sim another way, because they have to be careful not to be too The Sims like. By the way, that game I now consider a waste of my money, because the playability value sucked. But, live and learn, like I always say.
EA Marketing Department Motto:
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally) I Took The Pledge!
There is no reason to protest when know one is listening. Protesting games is like protesting a Rock! As long as the majority like it the rock will remain, until the majority decides to move the rock nothing will happen to the Rock.
Edit: Even if the Rock is a tripping hazard for some, it still takes a community to see the Rock has a hazard before they vote to remove the Rock.
I thought I would add on further to the comment.
Sid1701d-"I love my life, live my life and live to play, laugh and have fun."
"Love will Fight, Love will Win and Love will Survive."
But that patent is only specifically on the Sims, right? I don't think they can actually patent the life simulation genre. Just like they may have a patent on SimCity, but they cannot block other game companies from publishing a city builder game, which led us to Cities Skylines. So perhaps we will have another life simulation game in just a matter of time. The debacle of SimCity 2013 led to Cities Skylines, so it's entirely possible this will happen with the Sims. A wise company would be looking at all this untapped potential and discussing how they can get us to open our wallets to them instead.
They can't and yes it is for the Sims only. There have already been quite a few life sim games before. Like this game just got the greenlight to be developed and it is a life simulator game: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=422537663
Years ago, I made the mistake of buying a game called "Singles" which is an adult only game and the premise was to have two characters live together, develop a relationship and eventually get them to have sex. The game ended when the couple got engaged and married.
It was Sims like, but not quite. The sex was done under blankets, you couldn't see anything, and they lived in an apartment. There was a vaccuum cleaner that they could use to vacuum the floor; the appliances were similar, and the game play was, a bit...but there was no family aspect at all. The game was from Japan, as I recall. The language was gibberish; but it didn't sound like Simlish. I think the reason that company wasn't sued was because it was an extremely limited market, plus it was no threat to The Sims franchise.
So, yes, I think it's possible, but the problem would be getting the players to accept the differences in game play, when they're used to playing a Sim one way and the game makes them play their Sim another way, because they have to be careful not to be too The Sims like. By the way, that game I now consider a waste of my money, because the playability value sucked. But, live and learn, like I always say.
yeah we had also that game as a life simulator but he not was good as the sims anot well received actually the list is not small https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_simulation_game
the only one excluding "date simulation games(which are suscesfull in asian) social simulator(to be more specific, the sims games are a sub gender of life simulator in this case social simulator) was the sims we get some others but none had the same sucess as the sims series then is not impossible to have concerrence it's just more like none really wanted after see which only the sims sucessed otherwise you need to make the dates simulators.
Comments
Well I'm sorry I don't have the exact date and years the patent holds so it could be already expired. Just disregard everything I wrote.
> Is lack of transparency is a good thing for Maxis / EA?
> NO.
>
> Is it okay to boycott a product that you are unhappy with? If yes, is it okay to talk about this?
> Yes.
>
> And in regards to the current state of TS4 game, do you "get it"? If you do, what specifically about this game makes you keep playing? If you don't, why not?
>
> Count me among those who refuse to buy this game. I continue to frequent the forums because I hope that will not always be the case. However, I do NOT see myself ever buying this game until it has seasons, weather, holidays, pets and the supernatural lifestates (witch and vampire at a bare minimum). But I also hesitate even then because I hear the gameplay itself is so bad. Again, I keep tuning in to listen for and advocate changes.
Good because judging by your avi, your Sims 3 looks so good
That patent could very well be just on the name and a few minor things, not on life simulators in general. After all, Second Life is a life simulator, and they have every right to make their game.
There is, or was, a recent lawsuit against Zynga for Copyright infringement, which is not a patent, for copying "expressive elements" of The Sims Social. However, there are many games out there that could be compared to Sim City-like games without problems, including that one on Steam that seems to be quite popular.
@jarsie9 This is in my opinion what brought the protests in the VietNam war to a head, not the little boycotts or protests that I could do in a small Massachusetts college.
But since I have a different opinion then you do on anything I post, then I will not answer your posts, and I suggest you do not answer mine, as you seem to have a problem with anything I post unless I am agreeing with you, as you state I am doing so please block me and I will block you. Thank you.
People cannot rate a situation. You are not able to use a situation like you use a product. Situation protests can take years to be effective if they ever get effective - but product can literally be wiped off of the market if enough people see it as a bad product. When you invest in a product are you going to try the 5 star rated product or the one that is 1 star rated full of complaints. That is the difference. When consumers show a product does not deliver and other numbers of people agree - only a fool would go ahead and try the product anyway.
You cannot put a war or even the killing of the students at Kent state in the same argument. Those thing do not bring back the dead or fix it - so I really would not even put them in the same argument.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
Hmmm, regarding books. E.L. James wrote a fanfic of Twilight, somehow managed to make it even worse, changed the names, and made millions on 50 Shades of Grey.
I have no clue how any of this works but I know this -- if EA can make a claim, no matter how tenuous, it would take a fairly large sized company to be able to fight it just for financial reasons.
Guaranteed that if a larger publishing house owned the rights to Twilight, E.L. James would've been hung out to dry in court. Since Stephenie Meyers retained total rights and chose not to do anything, James's terrible book made a fortune and spawned a terrible movie. Some authors go this route. HP Lovecraft choose to share Cthulhu with the world and encouraged other writers to write stories using the characters. I could go to a publisher with an idea for a Cthulhu book right now with no legal worries. No way I could write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" though.
EA isn't going to stop someone from developing a Sims game, but what happens after all the work is done is the question? In the 90's, the Verve had a song that riffed off a Rolling Stones beat - the result was that the Rolling Stones got the entirety of their royalties for the song. I don't know many companies or people that would want to take the risk of developing a great game just to have EA come in at the end and swoop up all the profit.
Which is why EA pays for people to post positive ratings and messages on various sites.
> Writin_Reg wrote: »
>
> There is a big difference between protesting a product and protesting a situation. They are not one in the same. The general public sees product protesting as a reason to reconsider a product if they were thinking of buying the product. It is why consumers also look at consumer ratings of product and tend to steer clear of the products that are badly rated.
>
>
>
>
> Which is why EA pays for people to post positive ratings and messages on various sites.
Yep. They got busted doing that for simcity when it came out. People admited to posting positive stuff for money. Plus you have employees of EA who troll the forums and various sites to shoot down anyone who shows any discontent. They are pretty ovious to. Its like the really bad undercover cop at a high school trying to score "maryjane". Its laughable.
if i'm not wrong(or maybe was the opposite) harry potter already somehow was a rip-off from other book or was someone already made a harry potter like book, few years ago.
I'm actually not sure Meyers' could have won (or can win) a lawsuit. The names are different, the universe is different, and the premise is completely different. You could always make the argument that taking inspiration from something isn't intellectual theft. Especially since Twilight has a lot of parallels to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both women made a mint, either way.
Edit: To get on topic, really, whether someone could legally make a life simulation or not isn't the main issue -- EA could take whatever claim they have and sue and with corporate lawyers, it doesn't cost them much, whereas whomever they're suing, unless they also have lawyers on the payroll, would end up having to pay a lot out of pocket. This more than anything probably keeps small companies from even trying.
You're not wrong. I can't remember off the top of my head which books, but I know there were allegations against J.K. too. That's where it gets hairy - trying to decipher what is an original idea vs what is a rip off - after all, there is really no such thing as originality. Everyone has written about love, death, witches, vampires, ect.
As it relates to the sims, I wrote a post on the previous page talking about how difficult I personally thought it would be for another company to do a sims type game. Not because of the life simulation part - EA can't sue you for making a game where little people pee and sleep and eat - but because of the parts that EA/Maxis has a 15 year head start on perfecting. They've release 4 versions of the game so far - some versions have a "comfort" need, some have toddlers, one has an open-world, they all have similish, ect - and anyone making a similar game would have to avoid doing things in the same way EA did them in 4 different versions of the game. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's way more complex than even Cities/Skylines where any similarities could be written off as common to all city simulation games. Same with Second Life, which is conceptual much different than the Sims, regardless of the life simulation aspects. I wouldn't be signing pledges if I could get the same enjoyment playing Second Life as I do from playing the Sims.
Meyers could definitely win. There are total paragraphs in 50 Shades that were straight lifted from Twilight, the verbiage barely changes. Meyers just doesn't want to associate her own books with 50 Shades because it's embarrassing.
And on topic, agree with you. EA doesn't need to win anything, all they need to do is tie up the poor indie company or developer in court until the money runs out. That's a threat that most people that want to continue working in their job field take very seriously.
in the end what is matter is the power of $$ and greedy.
Huh, source? From what I understand (and disclaimer, I've not read either), James wrote a fan fiction with all names the same, then changed the names. I seriously doubt Random House (her publisher) would have let the book stand after something like outright plagiarism was uncovered. If in fact there were paragraphs taken from the book, RH could sue James.
Meyers actually seems to be supportive of James, at least in interviews.
Edit: It also makes me wonder if a small publisher, if sued by EA, would have a decent case against them. The US legal system is such a mess when it comes to this, but possibly a small company from a different country would be able to at least get something launched.
I'm not sure how patent law works, though, especially when it comes to patents on intellectual property.
maybe that can be a signal from bethesda can take a interest in the future to make a life simulate game, i would love to see companys like bethesda and paradox and some indy and even maybe others bigs like blizzard or rockstead or maybe even ubisoft step on that, more different visions for this genre can be very refreshing and maybe finally ea and maxis stop with the circle of lazyness and greed due to "being the only ones" doing that.
most of our problems come from that as long none other is doing it then they can keep pulling more and more unfinished and lazy works at ours hands.
Oopsie. I wrote it wrong. What I meant was that 50 Shades originated as Twilight fanfic, using the same names and setting. To get it published, James had to change the story enough to make it seem like a completely original story, but she didn't change it enough. She kept complete paragraphs from her original fanfic that used all Meyers characters and setting, which makes it obvious that her characters were not original. They were Meyers characters. James just changed the names and eye colors. That doesn't work in court.
If Meyers wasn't a supportive author and was a GRRM type, she could've sued and easily won. You can't write fanfiction based on someone else's characters, put it all over the internet for everyone to read and then just change the names (leaving the verbiage the same) to get it published unless the author doesn't mind you using their characters. Meyers didn't mind. Lots and lots of other authors do mind. Like I said, I can't write "Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" because it's obviously based on someone else's character. Parody is the only exception.
You make an interesting point about international law. I don't know enough about that particular topic, but it would be interesting to see what happened if a Sims competitor came out of a country that doesn't have "open to interpretation" laws. I imagine EA would somehow try to stop it from getting distributed, but it does open some fun law doors.
I didn't think her fanfic was edited much -- but I don't think that's illegal. She changed the names, and she apparently is a bad enough writer that the characters, while inspired by Twilight, were different. Different characters, including personalities, different universe, different scenario. Leaving out Meyers, Random House, if they thought plagiarism had happened, would have sued James for breach of contract. While her fanfic and her published works are pretty much the same, the fanfic, aside from the names, are different. 50 Shades of Grey is not about vampires, not about weird love between a 100+ year old man and a teenage girl, and doesn't have half-vampire children running around. You can get inspiration from something and use it and not have it be intellectual theft.
"Larry Scotter and the Witch's Rock" is too close, and an obvious rip off. If you were to write about a young man and his affair with the sister of his best friend, who hooked up with their other best friend and went to boarding school together, it wouldn't matter if it started off as a Harry Potter fanfic.
It makes you question whether any art is actually original. Dragon Age: Origins borrowed heavily from a few works that I can think of, including GRRM and LOTR.
Edit: Actually, that is the last I'll say on this as it's meandering off topic. So to bring it back on topic, I would wonder what about the Sims actually could be patented, and what an independent publisher could do to get around that.
I've noticed that other games are borrowing from the Sims. FO4's character creation seems close with the pushing and pulling of the face, and the building of settlements could be quite interesting, though different. Hopefully it's a good sandbox.
It was Sims like, but not quite. The sex was done under blankets, you couldn't see anything, and they lived in an apartment. There was a vaccuum cleaner that they could use to vacuum the floor; the appliances were similar, and the game play was, a bit...but there was no family aspect at all. The game was from Japan, as I recall. The language was gibberish; but it didn't sound like Simlish. I think the reason that company wasn't sued was because it was an extremely limited market, plus it was no threat to The Sims franchise.
So, yes, I think it's possible, but the problem would be getting the players to accept the differences in game play, when they're used to playing a Sim one way and the game makes them play their Sim another way, because they have to be careful not to be too The Sims like. By the way, that game I now consider a waste of my money, because the playability value sucked. But, live and learn, like I always say.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
Edit: Even if the Rock is a tripping hazard for some, it still takes a community to see the Rock has a hazard before they vote to remove the Rock.
I thought I would add on further to the comment.
"Love will Fight, Love will Win and Love will Survive."
Patents last 16-18 years. Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131951/hey_thats_my_game_intellectual_.php?print=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_simulation_game
the only one excluding "date simulation games(which are suscesfull in asian) social simulator(to be more specific, the sims games are a sub gender of life simulator in this case social simulator) was the sims we get some others but none had the same sucess as the sims series then is not impossible to have concerrence it's just more like none really wanted after see which only the sims sucessed otherwise you need to make the dates simulators.