Question About Copyrights to Custom Material

RobS

Warlord
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
184
Location
USA
I have a question to which I think I already know the answer, but will ask it anyway.

When people make any kind of custom material for the Civ games, do they acquire any copyrights or distribution rights to that material?

As a longtime player of computer games (since 1985), I'm pretty sure the answer is "No".
Although I've never read the EULA for any of the Civ games, I would guess, based on past experience with all other computer games (save one*), that the developer and/or publisher retains all rights to anything made for the game(s) by players. As a 30-year-long player of the Civ games, I think I would have heard about it if this weren't so, although I've never particularly dabbled in customization.
To put it another way, everything custom made for these games by its "community of players" are labors of love and are in the public domain for almost all intents and purposes, the only exception being Firaxis' ownership rights to all of it, if they chose to exercise that right.

Am I correct in assuming this?
Am I also correct in assuming that this is pretty much the "industry standard" way of doing things?

(*Battlefront's original trilogy Combat Mission games deliberately gave copyrights to third party scenario creators for their scenarios, although I don't know if this extended to other custom material for those games - and Battlefront made sure to let players know.
Edit: In the end, this made no difference to anyone. No one made any appreciable money off their scenario designs that I'm aware, and all scenarios eventually ended up at two or three websites that contained literally thousands of user-created scenarios, all downloadable for free.)
 
Last edited:
I am pretty sure that the creators of material such as mods of the game, along with graphic modpacks do not retain copyright, although some of Delta Strife's work might qualify for copyright. Firaxi i the ultimate copyright holder for all of their material.
 
I am pretty sure that the creators of material such as mods of the game, along with graphic modpacks do not retain copyright, although some of Delta Strife's work might qualify for copyright. Firaxi i the ultimate copyright holder for all of their material.
Thanks for your response.

That's always been my understanding as well, as I said in my OP.

The reason I bring this up is not because I have any issue in this regard with any of the Civ games, but because I have an issue with the way this issue is handled by a community of players of a totally unrelated game, by another developer/publisher. I'm thinking of starting a topic for that in the All Other Games forum because I'm looking for opinions from other long-time computer game players such as myself.
There probably won't be too many people interested in such a discussion, especially since the game in question is not a strategy game, but I might give it a try.
 
My understanding is that the creator of a work inherits the copyright, whether it's literature, artwork, etc. etc. So let's say I create some artwork for use in my Civ mod. A couple years later, I decide I want to re-use it in an Endless Legend mod. Maybe I have to convert the formats because Endless Legend probably doesn't use the PCX format, but I'm 99.8% sure Firaxis would have no ability to prevent my from re-using my own work in an Endless Legend mod just because I'd used it in a Civ3 mod.

The one exception might be if I were using licensed material in my work. Let's say I wanted to add a Mickey Mouse unit to Civ3. Maybe I strike up a deal with Disney to license Mickey Mouse, and Disney agrees in exchange for having the copyright on it.

In practice, most work created for most games isn't easily transferable to another game. My hypothetical Civ3 mod is not going to just work with Endless Legend. Even then, however, if Endless Legend's developers wanted to add the ability for Endless Legend to play Civ3 mods, it would be the equivalent of LibreOffice being able to open Microsoft Word documents, which is allowed. Microsoft doesn't have to help them read Word documents, but they can't prevent them either.

That example also is instructive in that Microsoft does not have any copyright claims to something you create in Microsoft Word. Firaxis doesn't have a copyright claim to your Civ3 save games, and I can't see how they would for other third-party content, either. Though they have copyrighted "Sid Meier's Civilization", "Civilization", and the game itself.

I think where it can get muddied is commercialization. E.g. some publishers don't take kindly to monetizing YouTube videos featuring their game, and they may well be able to legally prevent that just as a book publisher could prevent you from monetizing an audio recording of their book. Could you commercialize a Civ3 mod, by selling the files on your website? As long as you don't distribute Civ3 or any of its assets with your mods, I'm not sure that Firaxis could prevent you from a legal standpoint, but they might not be happy about it. They might be able to stop you from using "Civilization" to advertise it. Another example is: if you created a nice high-res image and started selling copies as postcards, and then decided to put it in your Civ3 mod, I don't think Firaxis could stop you from continuing to sell postcards just because you added it to a Civ3 mod.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (IANAL). Also, the EULA (which may or may not be enforceable) may be different in Civ3 than Civ6, and I haven't read them all.

---

I should also note that standard community practice here has been that any work you share here is considered to be in the public domain. If I create some Civ3 art, share it here, and you use it in your mod, you don't have to ask me for permission to do that. You could even use it for your own Endless Legend mod, even though I created it for Civ3. It might be nice to say, "hey, your art is really cool, it's part of my new mod XYZ!", but it isn't required.

Although I'm having trouble finding a citation for that beyond, "it's longstanding community practice". It's probably in an old thread that used to be a sticky somewhere...
 
Thanks for your response, Quintillus.
My understanding is that the creator of a work inherits the copyright, whether it's literature, artwork, etc. etc. So let's say I create some artwork for use in my Civ mod. A couple years later, I decide I want to re-use it in an Endless Legend mod. Maybe I have to convert the formats because Endless Legend probably doesn't use the PCX format, but I'm 99.8% sure Firaxis would have no ability to prevent my from re-using my own work in an Endless Legend mod just because I'd used it in a Civ3 mod.
This gets more into an issue of consumer rights versus developer/publisher rights, which isn't the issue in the game I speak of. In the game I'm speaking of it is actually a question of the rights of consumer versus consumer, as dumb as that sounds.
I guess I need to start my topic in the All Other Games forum so people can see what I'm getting at.
As simple as it may seem, your next to last paragraph actually gets to the heart of the matter I speak of, quote:

I should also note that standard community practice here has been that any work you share here is considered to be in the public domain. If I create some Civ3 art, share it here, and you use it in your mod, you don't have to ask me for permission to do that. You could even use it for your own Endless Legend mod, even though I created it for Civ3. It might be nice to say, "hey, your art is really cool, it's part of my new mod XYZ!", but it isn't required.
Of course. The whole point of creating custom mods is so the community of players can customize their games to make them more enjoyable. This is obvious to you and me and anyone else with at least half a brain, but it doesn't seem to be the case within the "community" of players of the game I'm referring to.
What I'm getting at will become much clearer when I start my thread in the All Other Games forum sometime this weekend, and I will provide a link in a follow-up post here in this thread.
 
Also, the EULA (which may or may not be enforceable)
It certainly isn't legally enforceable, meaning the power of the government can't be used to enforce it, however, a company could enforce a EULA within certain limited parameters, so long as they aren't breaking any laws (in theory at least).

So basically a EULA has the same enforceability as the rules for the Civfantics. Basically the admins and Mods of this site can warn, kick, or ban you from this site for being in violation of the forum's rules, but they can't have you be arrested by your local police department for doing so.

Mind you, that's just my personal take on the matter... I ain't no lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
 
Thanks for your response, Quintillus.

This gets more into an issue of consumer rights versus developer/publisher rights, which isn't the issue in the game I speak of. In the game I'm speaking of it is actually a question of the rights of consumer versus consumer, as dumb as that sounds.
I guess I need to start my topic in the All Other Games forum so people can see what I'm getting at.
As simple as it may seem, your next to last paragraph actually gets to the heart of the matter I speak of, quote:


Of course. The whole point of creating custom mods is so the community of players can customize their games to make them more enjoyable. This is obvious to you and me and anyone else with at least half a brain, but it doesn't seem to be the case within the "community" of players of the game I'm referring to.
What I'm getting at will become much clearer when I start my thread in the All Other Games forum sometime this weekend, and I will provide a link in a follow-up post here in this thread.

Ah, I see, you are talking about some modders being upset with other modders for circumstances that you may mention in the future thread later. Without knowing the specifics of that community, it's hard to comment on their norms. But I know that norms can differ somewhat; there are some games (mostly in the MMORPG community as I understand it) where modders can create, e.g., character skins and make them available for sales, in some cases even in-game. The game developer/publisher usually gets a cut, and the creator can in some cases make a sustainable income, and in those cases the modder probably would not want someone re-modifying the skin. But it sounds like you are referring to something causing more controversy.

It certainly isn't legally enforceable, meaning the power of the government can't be used to enforce it, however, a company could enforce a EULA within certain limited parameters, so long as they aren't breaking any laws (in theory at least).

So basically a EULA has the same enforceability as the rules for the Civfantics. Basically the admins and Mods of this site can warn, kick, or ban you from this site for being in violation of the forum's rules, but they can't have you be arrested by your local police department for doing so.

Mind you, that's just my personal take on the matter... I ain't no lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Mods being able to have someone arrested by the local police... that would indeed change the significance of that moderator badge. I think I'm glad that doesn't come with the job description - "8 infraction points and your local police officer will be sent to give you an in-person warning, and if you get two bans within three months that's one week in jail." It might cut down on trolling somewhat, but I'm glad that isn't how the ship operates.

But I see your point; League of Legends's developer could ban you from their servers for violating the EULA, but cheating in online gameplay isn't going to result in law enforcement showing up at your door.
 
But I see your point; League of Legends's developer could ban you from their servers for violating the EULA, but cheating in online gameplay isn't going to result in law enforcement showing up at your door.

Exactly!

Mods being able to have someone arrested by the local police... that would indeed change the significance of that moderator badge. I think I'm glad that doesn't come with the job description - "8 infraction points and your local police officer will be sent to give you an in-person warning, and if you get two bans within three months that's one week in jail." It might cut down on trolling somewhat, but I'm glad that isn't how the ship operates.
But let's carry this little thought experiment to it's logical conclusion:

Keep in mind, I've run into a LOT of abuse of power from Moderators (not necessarily on this forum, BTW, for clarification), where people have been banned because the Moderator didn't like them. Hell, I've been banned from various subreddits, that I neither belonged to nor posted much in at all, not for anything I did on their sub, but because I happened to belong to another sub the mods of the sub in question didn't like. Keep this concept in mind: volunteer mods are, on the whole, unreliable. Some are decent, but others are down right terrible.

Now, on the hand, if forum rules had to be legally enforceable, moderation would have to be curtailed to some degree because a number of rules would have to be removed, such as anti-hate speech rules because in the US* there aren't any anti-hate speech laws (SCOTUS would likely find them in violation of the 1st Amendment anyway if they were tried).

On the other hand, you would likely see the cost of maintaining a forum go WAY up because you wouldn't be able to utilize free volunteer mods (remember: volunteer mods are, on the whole, unreliable.) and would be forced into maintaining a moderation team made up of actual paid legal professionals and those don't come cheap. Due to this introduced cost floor, a lot of small forums that aren't maintained by companies (who already likely have a legal team available and an income to support it and would only need to scale up a bit) would necessarily wither and die, leading to the corporatization of the Internet. Of course, there would likely be a law passed where in order for a forum to count towards the above, they would have to be a minimum size. However, this comes with its own problems. Just because a forum meet an arbitrary size minimum doesn't mean the owner of the forum has the income to pay for the size of moderation team actually needed to maintain minimum moderation standards. I could see small forums maintaining an "invite only" system in a bid to maintain their small member count.

Over all, you would see a much less free and open Internet. Quite the dystopia over all.

*Keep in mind, I basing all this on the US legal code. Things get WAY too complicated when you try to take this global. Also, I'm more familiar with the US legal code anyway. But if you tried to take it global... I mean, there are countries where LGBTQ+ stuff is illegal, so how do you work around that? How do you work around the Great Firewall of China?
 
Oh, indeed, the dystopian aspect is the top reason I'm glad that's now how things work. And I'm not sure exactly how it works vis-a-vis the Communist Party of China if you want to start a web forum there, but a similar system is to a fair degree already in place there. You might not get in legal trouble for trolling (although if it's trolling Xi, you may well be), but not only do they have the well-known legal system, but more recently a "social credit" system, where if you have too many demerits, you can't do things like buy airline or high-speed rail tickets. I don't know whether they've integrated the social credit system with online monitoring, but wouldn't be at all surprised if at least to some degree they have.

CivFanatics is based on the U.S., so thankfully that does not apply to us here.
 
CivFanatics is based on the U.S., so thankfully that does not apply to us here.
For now at least. There have been those with power and influence who show admiration for the current Chinese System. I feel like, if they had their way such policies would implemented post-haste.

Good thing they probably won't have their say.
 
Okay, I'm back, after more than a year of ignoring this thread. I apologize to those who were wondering what gaming community I was referring to in my earlier posts uptopic. I never forgot about this thread, it's just that I find the subject irritating to the extreme, especially since it's stuck in my craw for the better part of 20 years now.

The game(s) and community in question are the many people that play The Sims franchise of games. To summarize the issue:
Since at least the release of The Sims 2, in 2004, and possibly even since the release of the original in 2000, it seems the majority of custom content creators for these games - in particular The Sims 2, which is the one I like to build houses for exclusively and which remains a very popular game - have essentially claimed ownership rights over the materials they create. They do this by posting their "permissions" to their "Policy" pages at certain fansites that specifically provide their members a page for doing so, or simply include their "permissions" or "Policies" in their profiles or some other place, if the site allows up/downloads.
Here is an example of a "Policy" page.

Essentially, they think they can dictate to players downloading their materials specifically how they may use the materials and whether the material can be uploaded elsewhere. They think they own the material they create outright, and can excercise all legal rights over it.
It's the same as if a Civ creator made a scenario and tried to dictate to other Civ players exactly how they may use the material and what they can and cannot do with it. It's an absurd notion. As someone uptopic pointed out, in almost all cases, when someone creates something for a game and uploads it to the internet, they're essentially putting the material into the public domain, with the only exception that the developer/publisher of the game can actually claim ownership if they wanted to. It's a simple concept that seems to be lost on the masses of cretins in the so-called Sims Community.

I'm not going to start a new discussion in another forum here at Civ Fanatics, as I first thought I would last year, since this issue isn't worth it to me, for one, and is simply too irritating to deal with. In any case, and before I end up typing for another hour or two here, I'll just post a lengthy comment I wrote to a Sims fansite a couple of months ago.
Here is the thread I created at that site, and here is my lengthy comment within it (text in red), which should be mostly self-explanatory:

So, what say you, Pescado? What "legal case(s)" are you referring to?

Do you actually think that anyone would ever challenge EA's ownership of all things made for their games? Is that the "legal case" you're referring to? Because if it is, you might as well wait for the sun to rise in the west and set in the east, because anyone wanting to start such a case against EA would be laughed out of any lawyer's office.
EA owns everything made for their games, and no one else owns anything. Just like every other software developer/publisher of any game I've ever played over the past 40 years owns everything anyone has made for their games. Players, ie, third-party "creators", own bupkis - nothing, and have no distribution or any kind of usage rights.
There is nothing whatsoever questionable about that.

Or maybe the "legal case(s)" you're referring to is some pimple-faced 15-year-old who thinks they can take someone to court because someone else posted their "creations" to some place they didn't approve of in their "Policies" (at various websites). That is also something that has never happened - and never will for the same reason given above, simply because players of the Sims games do not own their "creations" - EA does, and therefore no players could possibly sue any other players for violating their "Policies", ie, their "Rights", simply because they don't have any. The sheer absurdity of it boggles the mind.

That's the real point I'm getting at with is thread, namely, the notion that has persisted in this so-called "Community" for the past 20 years, or longer, that players actually have ownership control over the material they create, and the absurdity of the notion that one player can tell another player how and where they may use such material.

(I could care less about "paysites", or PMBD, but I'll get back to that in a moment, so read on.)

To repeat, EA owns everything made for their games, therefore no players have any legal control whatsoever over what happens with their creations once they upload them somewhere. For most intents and purposes, as soon as a player uploads something, they are putting the material into the public domain (again, with the exception that EA owns it and can do whatever they want with it at any time, with no compensation or ackowledgement). Other players can certainly do whatever they want with it as well.
The only exception to this are some external programs, created my modders such as Mootilda, and perhaps others. It's easy to tell when a program actually belongs to a player, because installing it will be preceded by the user having to agree to a EULA. Mootilda's 'Sims2PackInstaller' is a good example of this.

There have been countless other computer games over the years, and continue to be, wherein players have spent just as many hours creating custom material as have Sims players, yet for some odd reason, the Sims so-called "Community" is the only one where players think they actually have ownership rights over the material they create for the game.

For example, the Civilization franchise of games has been around since 1991, and is currently in their sixth iteration, with Civilization VI. Civ VII is in the pipeline.
I've played several of the Civ games, and never in the 30+ year history of the game have I ever seen anyone claim ownership rights to anything they've created for the game. Here is a large website dealing with the Civ franchise, and nowhere on that site will you see any "Policies" made by any players that try to tell other players what they can and cannot do with the material they've created for the game.
I also still ocassionally play the old Railroad Tycoon game, for which the same is true. Many players have created maps for that game, and no one has ever claimed any ownership rights, distribution rights or any other rights in relation to what they've created for the game.
The same is true for countless other games, past and present (and will be in the future as well).

There is this concept of "Labor of Love", which most people in the Sims so-called "Community" seem to be utterly unfamiliar with. Doing an internet search, "Labor of Love" is defined thusly:

A task performed voluntarily without expectation of reimbursement; an altruistic work or undertaking.
Productive work performed voluntarily without material reward or compensation.


In reference to computer games, it just means that someone has done something or made something, to simply improve the game, both for their own enjoyment and/or for the enjoyment of others. Many games are designed with precisely this function in mind.

THE SIMS SO-CALLED "COMMUNITY" IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I HAVE SEEN, IN 40 YEARS OF PLAYING COMPUTER GAMES, WHERE PEOPLE HAVE THIS ABSURD NOTION OF OWNERSHIP.
A person thinking themselves as clever might say that this is because Sims players are simply smarter and more astute than the average computer game player. I have to laugh as I'm writing this, because the opposite is obviously true.
I will acknowledge that this community perhaps has a higher percentage of players with at least some programming skills compared to the average gamer, but that doesn't change the legalities of ownership.

It's understandable that some people might be concerned that someone might "steal" their material and post it to a pay site, or sell it directly on Ebay or some other venue, but how often in the history of the Sims franchise has this actually happened? I keep hearing about a time period in the mid-2000's when TSR supposedly did this, although admittedly not on a large scale, and the actual evidence for it seems lost, if it ever existed at all, and assuming it actually happened. I've never seen any other example of someone supposedly "stealing" someone else's material for some reason. Even 20 years later, TSR is the only example I ever hear about when this was supposed to have happened.

I do not believe that the various website owners and admins actually believe the fairy tale that the material posted to their sites is actually owned by the players who upload it. They know very well that all of it is owned by EA, with the exception of a relatively small handful of external programs, as mentioned and exampled above.

So the question becomes, what is their real motive?

To me, it has been obvious for many years that a certain small but militant segment of the general Sims-playing population has been using the Sims games, and in particular Sims 2 when it was at the height of its popularity, to promote their social and political agenda. The nature of the game attracts certain segments of the population, and this one small segment in particular has been successful in convincing enough naive and impressionable people that they actually have legal ownership rights, and have thus been able to promote the false notion that players own the content they create. To these Drama Queens, it is far more important to stake out and cling to their small corner of the Sims world than to offer their creations as "Labors of Love" to the wider Sims community, as is the case with every other game I've ever played, and unencumbered by numerous restrictions as per their asinine, unenforceable "Policies".

When a comsumer buys a Sims game, they do so with the expectation of being able to freely trade custom content with other players, and to use that content without being limited by third-party enforced "Policies". In my opinion, EA should indeed have been sued by consumer protection groups, years ago, for allowing third-party operators to essentially take control of this game's online presence. EA made amends, somewhat, when they expicitly included in their Sims 3 EULA the following statement in Section 2B4:

"In exchange for the right to use content contributed by other users through the Software, when
you contribute content through the Software, you expressly grant to other users of the Software
the non‐exclusive, perpetual, transferable, worldwide, irrevocable right to access and use, copy,
modify, display, perform, and create and distribute derivative works from, your contributed
content in connection with the Software, and to distribute and otherwise communicate your
contributed content as a component of works that they create using the Software
, for example,
The Sims lots or The Sims videos, without further notice, attribution or compensation to you. You
hereby waive any moral rights of paternity, publication, reputation, or attribution under applicable
law with respect to EA's and other players' use and enjoyment of such content contributions in
connection with the Software.
"


Just because the Sims 2 EULA did not include such an explicit statement in regard to the sharing of custom content among players, doesn't mean the legality did not exist, because as I said previously, it has been industry-wide custom and policy, for many decades now, that software developers and publishers reserve all rights for anything made for their games.
In my opinion, it seems EA likely included the explicit statement in their Sims 3 EULA precisely because of the controversy concerning custom content in Sims 2 and third-party attempts to hijack the online presence of that game. I don't know this for a fact, but it is a reasobable assumption.

In short, once again, EA owns everything made for any of the Sims games, and anything uploaded to websites must be shared with other users without any encumbrances or limitations - period. EA owns everything and makes all the rules - third-party creators own nothing and cannot force players to follow any of their rules or so-called "Policies".
Granted, websites can be run as their owners and admins see fit, and they can enforce their members "Policies" within their sites, but as we all know, many of those "Policies" explicitly try to tell downloaders what they can and cannot do with the material in regard to other sites, and this is a right that these members do not have.

Now, let me get back to the issue of paysites (and PMBD).

Starting about 20 years ago, although perhaps even earlier to the late 1990's during the Sim 1 days, much has been said about EA having sole legal rights to sell anything related to the games, and that anyone else doing so is breaking the law and infringing on EA's rights.
Hence, the creation of PMBD to freely distribute as much content as possible from the hated "paysites". So far, so good.

As I've stated above, I agree that only EA has monetary rights to game material, regardless of who created it, although I also think that it should be up to EA to enforce those rights, should they choose to do so, and not have third-party players, such as MATY and PMBD do this. But MATY and PMBD have not broken any laws in doing so, so all is well.

What I find amusing and revealing, though, is that here we are now, some 20 years later, and many Sims players have taken to sites such as Patreon, to put their "creations" behind a paywall - and for some odd reason, the best Mr. Pescado can cryptically say to explain this, earlier in this thread, is that, "People seem to have taken their business to various other sites", being careful not to mention Patreon by name.
While 20 years ago it was probably somewhat difficult for the average person to set up a paysite, nowadays all anyone has to do is set up an account with Patreon and start raking in their million$ (yeah, right).
In other words, the same people who, over the years, bitterly denounced paysites and seemingly worked feverishly to destroy them, seem to have gradually joined their erstwhile enemy, now that technology and internet commerce improvements have made the process easy enough for any moron to use.
The word "Hypocrites" comes to mind in regard to these people, but I think "Scoundrels" is much simpler and more to the point.

Finally, this entire post is more directed at the Sims-playing public at large who might stumble upon it, as at anyone at this website. To them I would say: Don't be taken in by the small collection of societal freaks that run many Sims fansites. Their primary goal is not the improvement of the Sims games, but to use these games to promote their depraved social and political agendas.
What is the point of "honoring" some players "Policy" from 15-20 years ago, especially when said player hasn't been active in the "Community" for many years, which is often the case?
Have you ever asked yourself why it is that in order to get a complete set of doors or windows for Sims 2 that you often have to travel to several websites to complete the quest, and that you then are obliged to "give credit" and link back to each website if you intend on using the material for your own creations? This is mainly due to the false and insane notion that anyone that creates anything for this game has legal control over that material and that no one else can change it, improve it, or even just collect various objects scattered across the internet and re-upload it somewhere as a coherent and convenient whole.
Don't misunderstand, I'm all for giving credit, not only as a matter of courtesy, but even more importantly because players need to know where the material that they put into their games comes from. This is especially true for complicated games such as the Sims series. But this doesn't mean that content creators have any legal ownership rights over the material they upload for the public to use, and thus they have no right to dictate how material may be distributed or used.

You players who think you own the material you make for these games need to get over yourselves. You are no different from thousands of other players who make things for other games, and who never promote the absurd notion of ownership.


And now you all know why it took me over a year to get back to this issue. While that website is no longer very active, the guy running it, Pescado, has been very active in the Sims community for 20+ years.

The majority of people in the so-called "Sims Community" are easily the nastiest bunch of cretins I've come across in my almost 40 years of computer gaming. They have a political and social agenda and want to use the Sims franchise of games to promote it. I could care less about their agenda, but to drag a game into it in order to impress impressionable people is a special form of low. Many, if not most players in that community seem oblivious to this. As an aside, it frankly doesn't surprise me that when The Sims 2 was the go-to game, back in the mid-2000's, Russia put an adult label on it in an effort to stifle some of these agendas. Anyway, I don't want to get into the politics.

Anyway, thanks for your interests. The previous comments in this thread have confirmed my position on this issue, as I expected. There isn't much more to say. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Edit: I just realized I put this thread into the Civ 3 forum. I don't know why I did that, that's kind of stupid. It probably belongs in the Colosseum/Off-Topic forum, and if admins want to move it there, that's obviously OK with me.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom