View Single Post
Old 04-06-2007, 07:06 PM   #2
DragonMan Ren
Rising Sun
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1
Default

I believe he's taking a shot at BlueSoup and Pescado, Wren. They've got a site that offers pay-exclusive content for free, claiming that such content violates the rules with EA or somesuch.

I'm really not decided on the issue one way or another. There's a lot to be said for both sides of the debate.

Arguments for the site:
1. Pay sites might actually violate the rules. I haven't actually studied it to see the EA rules on custom content, but it seems plausible, as I've seen similar restrictions on other software.
2a. Pay content is only previewable through the screenshots, and in game, it is often substandard crap. If such content was provided for free, the creator would be deeply ashamed of his premature release.
2b. Pay site operators are often jerks, knowingly pawning substandard crap off on us.
3. It only affects pay-exclusive sites. A free site with a donate option doesn't even come up on the radar.
4. Content creation, like everything about the game, is intended to be a hobby, not a profession.

Refuting arguments:
1. People like the stuff enough to buy it. If EA doesn't like it, they should provide better stuff.
2a. People can stop buying from crappy creators if this continues to happen. The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't change the fact that people are still willing to pay for it.
2b. Pescado is also a jerk.
3. Relying on people's generosity is for fools.
4. People pay for and get paid for hobbies all the time.

I'm sort of favoring the pay-site side of the argument right now. As a political scientist, the economist in me says that, if you want something enough to pay for it, you should expect to. Of course, I'm broke right now too, after the move, so I haven't gotten any pay site content in quite a while.
DragonMan Ren is offline   Reply With Quote