SimCity 1 Dat File

[InvisiChem]

There are not many mods out there that need to modify this file directly. CAM is one that does. Distribution of the original file is prohibited, but it begs to question if an unofficial patch to this file may be allowed with full disclosure that it is there.

Modifications of the components are what bring us all of the custom content we currently know. In essence, many of us are distributing a modified version of the SimCity_1.dat file in some form, only smaller, and overriding what is already there. In the case of CAM, this has caused a serious bug. The double workforce/Doubled CI bug. Most of it has been solved, but the IR Fix in the new version causes a whole new doubling issue if it is not patched with 3rd party programs.

I have done months of research on this problem. Utilizing the fix of the original CAM bug by Z, I was able to put out the new CAM that only has a doubling issue when not patching the Total Industrial exemplar when it contains the Sums function. Even including the IHT fix, found on Simtropolis did not cause any noticeable doubling effect. This is probably because this exemplar does not use the Sums function. Z determined the Sums function was the issue as well in his previous posts about the bug.

My question therefore is, since I am using the Total Industrial exemplar to make SimCity include IR in its totals, could I distribute the modified SimCity_1.dat file in the installer without having to use programs or self written classes to patch the file during install? I do realize this would require full documentation in the readme, manual and descriptions. A backup is already made of the file before patching. All this would do is remove the time consuming and nightmare process of running another application to achieve the same results.

[NCGAIO]

Just for think ...


Everyone knows that this would not be permitted by the EULA which includes all files.


But if it were analyzed as possible giving a mod this privilege so why it would not be possible to distribute a new Graphics Rules best suited  the current reality or even an exe with the integration of Manifest Section to troubleshoot installation problems?


The problem is always the same .... change by other processes is already common point in many cases but the distribution of changed  files will never escape of the prohibition by EULA unfortunately

Certainly querying to EA about this is time lost ( even more now that maxis / simcity is dead ) maybe  were now of the community position allowing the distribution of material that would solve the problems directly.


Or even implement gameplay advances ( in this case ) without the lay users had to perform processes to which they do not have empathy and that most often cause disinterest in use.


IMO should be a deep reflection about this.

[twalsh102]

I don't think you are going to get the answer you want.  Even disregarding the terms of the EULA, I think Copyright Law is going to trump everything.  To get a 100%, "this will stand up in court" answer, you really need a lawyer (preferably one that specializes in copyright law) to give you an answer to what is really a request for a legal opinion.  I wonder if there is one hanging around in here someplace?

The key words in US copyright law are going to be "distribution" (not just distribution for profit), and "without consent of the copyright holder."  Unfortunately, attribution isn't enough.

Despite the "Maxis" brand-name being dead, and the fact that EA no longer even supports this game, barring getting EA's consent to distribute "patched" files, the only other way around this quandary would be if EA were to release SC4 to the public domain (probably even less likely that them giving consent).

So we are left with people like you, who pour their souls into coming up with workarounds, and the inevitable workarounds for the workarounds, to try and fix the things that we know are broken.  Just remember we truly appreciate your hard work.

[mgb204]

Simply put, redistribution of such files would probably violate the T&C's of the Lex and/or STEX, this is not viable.

Just like the I-HT fix, over the years people have tried to find a way around needing to patch SimCity1.dat, but to no avail. I don't see this situation being any different.

However, something like a modified .ini or settings file does not contain proprietary code or IP. So redistribution of such modified files should be fine.

[InvisiChem]

Kind of what I was expecting.    Never hurts to ask from those who've been around this longer than me. I fully endorse the Terms and Conditions of all intellectual property. A ton of work goes into these creations, so protection is necessary.

I do wish it would not violate any agreements to have full disclosure if doing something like a replacement unofficial patch, but points have been made where it could be a disaster. If the SimCity_1.dat were allowed, what then would stop someone from modifying the EXE for instance. The precedent would then be there.

Easier it would be, yes. I still agree it is our responsibility to protect the Agreements of Maxis/EA as we have agreed by installing the game and this site, along with others, has done for over a decade.

Thank you guys for the great answers to a very old question.

[APSMS]

I don't think you are going to get the answer you want.  Even disregarding the terms of the EULA, I think Copyright Law is going to trump everything.  To get a 100%, "this will stand up in court" answer, you really need a lawyer (preferably one that specializes in copyright law) to give you an answer to what is really a request for a legal opinion.  I wonder if there is one hanging around in here someplace?

Well, SC4Devotion does in fact have voluntary legal counsel (courtesy of David/dedgren), but I doubt his advice would be any different. It's a shame, really, because of the extreme lack of support that EA gives to the community nowadays, but you're right that such consent is extremely unlikely. It's unfortunately not even evident who in EA you would ask for permission, unlike Maxis where at least you had a face to refer to to ask about code and other things. I doubt a general copyright email would even get a form letter response, much less a personal answer.

[InvisiChem]

I think I'll poke em a bit anyways. Worst case scenario, we stay in the same position as always. Best case, they realize this is still an active community that can boost sales so is worth supporting. Not likely, but dreams never truly die. 

[InvisiChem]

So, I got a very surprising reply from Electronic Arts. They actually stated distributing a modified version of SimCity_1.dat would not be a violation under these conditions. Attached is the screen shots of the chat. I only removed my full name from the first image.

[Mandarin(a)]

That is ... amazing, I guess? If I understood that correctly, I would say so ...

[vortext]

 

Not sure though how much trust should be placed in this anonymous specialist, or how well a screencap of a chat holds up in court for that matter. 

That said, it's pretty friggin' awesome!

On a practical note, another thing to keep in mind is the file size, i.e. bandwidth. There's a reason pre-rendered regions are not allowed on the LEX/STEX. Seeing Simcity1 weighs in at 150mb make sure to compress the heck out of it before uploading. 

[InvisiChem]

With just the compression algorithm through IzPack, I've been able to get the whole CAM, including the SimCity_1.dat down to 100MB. See what I can do to get it a little smaller anyways. 

Doesn't weigh in much for bandwith, but at least with this a lot less board space is going to be needed to support packing operations with outdated tools and CAM. 

[bombardiere]

Wow   what an interesting reply. I would have not expected it. Good job. 

I still would be a bit careful as that person may not know what he is talking about.

I can only dream, just a tiny hope that EA will drop SC4. It could be their last revenge. Abonware or version with source code would be the biggest competitor to Cities Skylines and other possible citybuilding games

I had some problems with the installation and SimCity_1.dat, but I can live with datpacker route. But if this makes it easier to you then great.

[Andreas]

That's an interesting reply alright, but I agree that the guy in the chat (somehow, I wonder if there are actual people sitting there, or if it's just a cleverly programmed chat bot) or the "specialist" actually understood what you were planning to do.

On the other hand, several websites got the permission to distribute the Maxis landmarks, for instance, so maybe EA doesn't care all too much, as long as nobody is making money from that stuff. Ideally, you should try to send an e-mail and ask for confirmation, but there might be some hope after all.

[InvisiChem]

@bombardiere They are not likely to release the source code of SC4 anytime in the near future. It still generates quite a bit of income, especially with the new updates removing the ability to use Safedisc protected programs. If you read over at Simtropolis, many are converting over to digital versions, generating a huge amount of cash.

@andreas good point on the email. I'll try to find someone to email for it.

As for the reason I think they would be so willing to allow this, it is just a data file. I (we) are not asking permission to put in code that would allow external files to control aspects of the game thereby allowing a vulnerability. Not asking permission to reverse engineer the code, so in essence, it's just replacing a data file with a modified one. Dat Packing it together does basically the same thing, so the question was really distribution of a main data file. Again, since it's just a data file, not a major piece of the code, I can see where it really is not that big of a deal. Asking for the EXE (the only real code file in the game, it's not that complicated of a game codewise) would have been an absolute no way in my wildest dreams.

Even with this, a big part needs to be stated. This should be reserved only for absolute needed reasons. Everybody distributing SimCity_1.dat of their own making would make mods unstable at best, completely undo them at worst. The only reason this is important for me is CAM causes a huge bug if not implemented into the file directly.

Just my thoughts on the matter of why it would not be so complicated, but hey, I'm a dreamer and chase those dreams until they end. 

[NCGAIO]

For the record ...


As  said above simplification is always a good idea, but I have a small observation about the showing the displayed messages.


This is not modding by the addition of a process but the distribution of an original file of the game modified modifiedified and it was not apparently the perception of its interlocutors ... actually I do not know if they understood the right subject matter or if they could opine about it so quickly.


Unless something has changed recently EA's position remains the EULA including all modifications that have been implemented for digital versions.


Some time ago it was not possible for example to obtain an affirmative answer regarding the distribution of a graphical configuration file more current ... and this it's just a simple script ... since the time of the "graphics rules  maker'.


But I cheer for this to be possible because even as also I have already mentioned before, there are even detailed statements on PP documents that previously thought from the beginning to allow easy access for changes made by libraries...  and even made by the own users


As is the case of the recent "SC4Fix": that despite being a process to modify the executable loaded in memory ... what the EULA also prohibits ... was accepted by all perhaps because it is not exactly a distribution of  exe file modified.

in time: Missions manned to Mars should be much closer than the old "SC4" become an abandonware.

[InvisiChem]

Right now, this is merely a discussion of the process. Even if the Agent is correct and the distribution would not violate the EA/Maxis EULA, the question then turns to would it violate the LEX agreement?

All personal thoughts and actions here. In no way would I ever put this community in jeopardy or go against the wishes. It was started by BSC members and affiliates, is maintained by BSC members and its affiliates and I am not currently a member of the BSC or its affiliates. I am in no position to push an agenda, put the ideals of this group at risk or even think about violating the wishes and operations of this amazing community. I will argue an interesting point to further progress, whether it agrees with me or not.

With that, personally only, I am taking the agents words at face value I think call center (chat center?) agents are versed in basic agreement clauses of their games. The general agreements are what would be enforced and only if it caused damages to company. I stated distribution of SimCity_1.dat specifically, the agent in image 2 stated distribution specifically. Even if I were to distribute this file, it would not allow anyone to operate the game without purchasing it. It does not bypass any protection mechanisms like modifying the EXE file could do.

The SC4Fix dll is a great example of what is possible without harming EA/Maxis. It provides a great fix for a very aggravating bug. The community also provides amazing fixes for bugs. Digital groups, like GOG, are permitted to distribute the Graphics Rules script now. Of course, they pay a royalty to be able to distribute a copy. This community is non-profit and therefore cannot pay a royalty. As was stated, this is possible only because of the acceptance of the community, even though it is a direct violation of the EULA. EA/Maxis again will definitely not pursue anything legal because it fixes the game.

I know, a lot here, but that is the point of this. Open discussion

[mrbisonm]

I was with the idea since 2014, now the game is old enough..............it is time!


Fred

[twalsh102]

Wow, my hat is off to you, my friend.  I know there is a long history of people trying to contact EA with essentially this same question and they have been met with silence (or so legend says).  I'm wondering if you are the first person to engage EA Technical Support on this particular issue, with what is essentially a legal question.  Brilliant thinking outside the box.  This will definitely fall into the "now why didn't I think of that?" category.

For the powers that be, because of the sheer import of this news (assuming the community decides to run with it -- and I think it should), and because of InvisiChem's never-give-up attitude, I think another karma point is in order.

[APSMS]

twalsh102, the K-point has been sorted.

[InvisiChem]

A very big thank you friends. Trying to find someone contactable in the legal department now to verify everything. Hopes are big, but we never know. Might come up with a big empty space, which of course brings it back to the community.