EA's Latest Cash Grab

[BearyBry]

Be warned if you plan on commenting what a stupid idea the new micro transactions are on the EA forums, it'll get you banned from the site!

 

It's almost like the Sims team and the EA overlords hate free speech and reject the right to protest.

 

I'm just hoping that the CC/mod creators I use will be giving EA the finger and boycotting the marketplace.

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

On 3/4/2026 at 12:26 PM, BearyBry said:

Be warned if you plan on commenting what a stupid idea the new micro transactions are on the EA forums, it'll get you banned from the site!

 

It's almost like the Sims team and the EA overlords hate free speech and reject the right to protest.

 

I'm just hoping that the CC/mod creators I use will be giving EA the finger and boycotting the marketplace.

 

Let me put it this way, since this is digital stuff we're talking about, and digital stuff can be copied and shared over the internet, there really isn't much stopping you from getting what you want, for the low low cost of... Nothing... Ok, well, maybe the cost of a VPN subscription, but you get what I'm saying.

 

That is a form of protest, like it or not. You are technically not stealing anything, you are only preventing the exchange of money from happening; something that you can do by simply not buying anything, OR downloading a copy of it. Either way the end result will be $0.00 exchanged, and because it's a copy of the original, it's not theft.

 

Now, your moral sense is something else, if that sort of thing bothers your morals, then don't do it.

 

EDIT/ADDENDUM: I would argue that in some ways, going the "unauthorized copy" method is potentially better for a digital product than not buying it. I say this because when you simply choose not to buy something, then the company that makes it may assume that there is no interest in the product they are making, so they may decide to not make a sequel, or to stop making a product altogether, while the other way displays some level of interest in a product, but hints that "something else" is wrong. Because, make no mistake, they are aware that downloads are taking place, it's obvious that they monitor that kind of stuff because that's how they estimate lost revenue.

Edited March 23 by Z0mBieP00Nani

[FauxFurry]

The Microtransaction are not new, they just decided to expand it to The Sims 4 rather than leave it out of the set. Now all of the games have it. It can be ignored in the same way that it could earlier. It is less bad by a fair sight than the button that keeps trying to sell things in-game.

[BadxKarma]

On 3/4/2026 at 12:26 PM, BearyBry said:

Be warned if you plan on commenting what a stupid idea the new micro transactions are on the EA forums, it'll get you banned from the site!

 

It's almost like the Sims team and the EA overlords hate free speech and reject the right to protest.

 

I'm just hoping that the CC/mod creators I use will be giving EA the finger and boycotting the marketplace.

The First Amendment says the government can’t punish you for your speech. It does not say that:

• Websites

• Forums

• Discord servers

• Social media platforms

• Private communities

must allow anything you want to say.

Those spaces are privately owned, and the owners set the rules. If you walk into someone’s home and start shouting things they don’t like, they can ask you to leave. That’s not “violating your free speech." That’s their right to control their space. Online communities work the same way. When you join a platform, you agree to their rules. Every site has: Terms of Service, Community guidelines, Moderation policies. If you break those rules, the platform can remove your post or your account. That’s not censorship it’s enforcing the agreement you accepted.

Edited March 31 by BadxKarma

[PeterMcPhallus]

On 3/31/2026 at 9:06 AM, BadxKarma said:

The First Amendment says the government can’t punish you for your speech. It does not say...

Everything you said is technically correct.

 

But there's a wide difference between "legal" and "ethical". Constitutional law aside, It's still a dick move on EA's part to ban people for giving negative feedback. That's the funny thing about the concept of "free speech"; It only seems to come up when someone wants to "freely speak" something that someone else doesn't want anyone to hear.

[BearyBry]

3 hours ago, PeterMcPhallus said:

Everything you said is technically correct.

 

But there's a wide difference between "legal" and "ethical". Constitutional law aside, It's still a dick move on EA's part to ban people for giving negative feedback. That's the funny thing about the concept of "free speech"; It only seems to come up when someone wants to "freely speak" something that someone else doesn't want anyone to hear.

Exactly, it's very telling when a company, organisation, government, etc removes ones ability to protest, to let people air grievances and see that choices they make are unpopular, they don't have to do anything about it but if enough people speak up and say they're not happy with a decision that's been made then it might open up a dialogue to make changes that more people can agree with.  Simply shutting down that process and not believing themselves to be flawed in any way, clearly not caring about (in this case) players opinions just shows that they don't care about those people and all they want is to squeeze every last penny out of us, thinking we'll just kow tow to them and give them permission to force more unpopular elements onto us.

[BadxKarma]

4 hours ago, PeterMcPhallus said:

Everything you said is technically correct.

 

But there's a wide difference between "legal" and "ethical". Constitutional law aside, It's still a dick move on EA's part to ban people for giving negative feedback. That's the funny thing about the concept of "free speech"; It only seems to come up when someone wants to "freely speak" something that someone else doesn't want anyone to hear.

Peter, nothing I said was incorrect. I explained how the First Amendment works. You and Beary are discussing ethics and corporate choices, which is a different subject entirely.

Edited April 2 by BadxKarma

[PeterMcPhallus]

On 4/1/2026 at 6:12 PM, BadxKarma said:

Peter, nothing I said was incorrect. 

 

On 4/1/2026 at 1:55 PM, PeterMcPhallus said:

Everything you said is technically correct.

 

Good. I'm glad we agree.  

[BadxKarma]

On 4/4/2026 at 2:58 AM, PeterMcPhallus said:

 

 

Good. I'm glad we agree.  

Peter, we don’t actually agree. I explained the legal framework. You shifted to an ethical argument. Those are two separate discussions.

[SilentAegis]

On 4/11/2026 at 10:05 AM, BadxKarma said:

Peter, we don’t actually agree. I explained the legal framework. You shifted to an ethical argument. Those are two separate discussions.

We all know your explanation of the legal side is correct, but it's not a separate discussion, only one layer of the same issue. Peter expanded the scope, not shifted the topic. There's more sides to this than simply legality, is the point. Yes, mentioning free speech in the original post was a little intellectually awkward since "free speech" doesn't apply cleanly here, but being able to criticize without being shut down is a perfectly reasonable expectation that EA is apparently failing to allow space for. Which is OP's ultimate point and the one to actually engage with.

Edited April 14 by SilentAegis

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

On 3/31/2026 at 12:06 PM, BadxKarma said:

The First Amendment says the government can’t punish you for your speech. It does not say that:

• Websites

• Forums

• Discord servers

• Social media platforms

• Private communities

must allow anything you want to say.

Those spaces are privately owned, and the owners set the rules. If you walk into someone’s home and start shouting things they don’t like, they can ask you to leave. That’s not “violating your free speech." That’s their right to control their space. Online communities work the same way. When you join a platform, you agree to their rules. Every site has: Terms of Service, Community guidelines, Moderation policies. If you break those rules, the platform can remove your post or your account. That’s not censorship it’s enforcing the agreement you accepted.

 

Social media platforms does not really belong on that list though. Those are the new way we share ideas and keep in touch. Censoring those would be like a cell service censoring text messages and phone calls they found offensive. The fact that social media platforms can censor speech (within reason, you know, derogatory or illegal stuff) is just wrong.

 

"Go make your own", yeah, that works until people who don't like what is being said on that platform, specifically the sources proving monetary support for that platform, like banks and advertisers, decide or pressured into cutting off funding for that platform... which is really just another form of censorship.

 

This is why public social media platforms should not be allowed to censor what is on them, like I said, outside of things that are illegal or obscene.

 

But those are just my opinions on the subject.

[BadxKarma]

5 hours ago, Z0mBieP00Nani said:

 

Social media platforms does not really belong on that list though. Those are the new way we share ideas and keep in touch. Censoring those would be like a cell service censoring text messages and phone calls they found offensive. The fact that social media platforms can censor speech (within reason, you know, derogatory or illegal stuff) is just wrong.

 

"Go make your own", yeah, that works until people who don't like what is being said on that platform, specifically the sources proving monetary support for that platform, like banks and advertisers, decide or pressured into cutting off funding for that platform... which is really just another form of censorship.

 

This is why public social media platforms should not be allowed to censor what is on them, like I said, outside of things that are illegal or obscene.

 

But those are just my opinions on the subject.

I get where you’re coming from, but my point in that comment was strictly about what the law currently says, not what the rules should be. Social media platforms function like public squares in practice, but legally they’re still private companies, which is why the First Amendment doesn’t apply to their moderation decisions. The ethical and structural issues you’re talking about are real, but they fall under policy and regulation, not constitutional law.

 

13 hours ago, SilentAegis said:

We all know your explanation of the legal side is correct, but it's not a separate discussion, only one layer of the same issue. Peter expanded the scope, not shifted the topic. There's more sides to this than simply legality, is the point. Yes, mentioning free speech in the original post was a little intellectually awkward since "free speech" doesn't apply cleanly here, but being able to criticize without being shut down is a perfectly reasonable expectation that EA is apparently failing to allow space for. Which is OP's ultimate point and the one to actually engage with.

My point in that comment was just to clarify the legal framework because people were using “free speech” in a way that doesn’t apply to private platforms. The ethical side and the community‑norms side are valid layers, but they’re separate from the constitutional question I was addressing. Once the legal misunderstanding is cleared up, then the conversation about EA shutting down criticism makes a lot more sense.

[PeterMcPhallus]

On 4/11/2026 at 10:05 AM, BadxKarma said:

Peter, we don’t actually agree. I explained the legal framework. You shifted to an ethical argument. Those are two separate discussions.

And I agree with that too, they are two separate discussions. 

 

Where I do think we might actually disagree is where the "discussion shifting" actually occurred. The OP was making an ethical argument from the git go, and I simply expressed my support for his position, while also trying to bring the conversation back on topic. Because the OP used some legal terms incorrectly, the thread was shifting into a Constitutional Law discussion, which, again, was not the OP's main point as I understood it.

 

@BearyBry may feel free to correct me if my assessment is in error.

[ShErrEE77]

On 3/23/2026 at 2:37 PM, FauxFurry said:

The Microtransaction are not new, they just decided to expand it to The Sims 4 rather than leave it out of the set. Now all of the games have it. It can be ignored in the same way that it could earlier. It is less bad by a fair sight than the button that keeps trying to sell things in-game.

That also depends on the owner of the site. If for any reason he gets a bug up, such as you saying anything derogatory about his ability to correct his mod in a timely manner. He doesn't have to give any reason for his laziness. He just bans you like all of these tech meatheads. And like you say these are public forums so we're not in your house, are we?