Spore / DRM / EA / PC Game Industry

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: wanderer27

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

Steam stops resales, but you don't hear people bitching about that too much.

You know, that's a really good point that I haven't really given a whole lot of thought too.

Other than being more convenient, is a Steam version cheaper or have any other advantages over a hardcopy?

Horribly more expensive in the UK.
In the US I think it's even (except when there are sales on), but 99% of the time for the UK the Steam price is much higher (and that was at $2 = £1, now that it's $1.75 = £1 the prices got even worse!).
It's more convenient if you want immediate access or a game and have no nearby shops and a fast internet connection, or the game will be installed on a LOT of machines for you to use, or the game is stupid and a hard copy requires the CD to play.

Steam is just a slightly sugar coated version of the DRM in Spore, in that you can download and install anywhere, but you definitely can't resell, Valve can kill your whole account (and ALL games) or it can get hijacked with just one login.
Plus it's horrible if you go from living with siblings and sharing games to living on your own and still all want to play the games on one Steam account (but different games, e.g. TF2 and HL2) in different places e.g. college vs home.

There are also equal risks of authentication servers going down (although with Spore you only lose one game, whereas with Steam you lose all games on that account).

Spore's DRM is only something people complain about because they are idiots (IMO).
3 isn't a great number, but it's not a hard number either, it's a soft cap that can be extended if you ask. And it should also be enough to last at least a while. It may even be that EA will give up on it eventually once the sequel or similar is out and allow free reign for users to install as many times as they want (when they can no longer be bothered to deal with the hassle).

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

Doubtful that's the reason. If it was - then why don't console games have the same restrictions? Publishers don't see a dime from rental and used console game sales. Imagine if PC games had the same luxury... A PC games version of gamefly... I'd definitely subscribe to that service in a heartbeat.

Most people typically install a game ONCE on their own PC and usually never re-install it again. Those who need to have unlimited or multiple installations do so because they want to avoid having to buy the game to install it on another system [SPORE discussion is filled with "can I install it on multiple PC's"...]

Unless I'm re-installing the Operating System - I rarely ever re-install a game. If I do - it's only because the publisher has released an add-on pack that requires the original game or it's a multi-player game which has renewed my interest.

See a trend here? DRM is in place to prevent joe schmoe from letting 10 friends borrow his copy or make copies - that's all. DRM isn't preventing you from reselling your game - if you reach the install limit, you just call up the publisher and get it re-activated.

As for EA's roadmap - it sounds like they want to try and go to a 100% digital media format similar to STEAM.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: coloumb

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

Doubtful that's the reason. If it was - then why don't console games have the same restrictions? Publishers don't see a dime from rental and used console game sales. Imagine if PC games had the same luxury... A PC games version of gamefly... I'd definitely subscribe to that service in a heartbeat.

Most people typically install a game ONCE on their own PC and usually never re-install it again. Those who need to have unlimited or multiple installations do so because they want to avoid having to buy the game to install it on another system [SPORE discussion is filled with "can I install it on multiple PC's"...]

Unless I'm re-installing the Operating System - I rarely ever re-install a game. If I do - it's only because the publisher has released an add-on pack that requires the original game or it's a multi-player game which has renewed my interest.

See a trend here? DRM is in place to prevent joe schmoe from letting 10 friends borrow his copy or make copies - that's all. DRM isn't preventing you from reselling your game - if you reach the install limit, you just call up the publisher and get it re-activated.

As for EA's roadmap - it sounds like they want to try and go to a 100% digital media format similar to STEAM.

Hahaha a DRM fan!! It seems if anything bad or largely unliked arises theres people who will support it, either through ignorance or just for attention who knows.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: coloumb
See a trend here? DRM is in place to prevent joe schmoe from letting 10 friends borrow his copy or make copies - that's all. DRM isn't preventing you from reselling your game - if you reach the install limit, you just call up the publisher and get it re-activated.

Read this: http://www.reclaimyourgame.com...rticle&id=75&Itemid=44

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: wanderer27

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

Steam stops resales, but you don't hear people bitching about that too much.

You know, that's a really good point that I haven't really given a whole lot of thought too.

Other than being more convenient, is a Steam version cheaper or have any other advantages over a hardcopy?

Horribly more expensive in the UK.
In the US I think it's even (except when there are sales on), but 99% of the time for the UK the Steam price is much higher (and that was at $2 = £1, now that it's $1.75 = £1 the prices got even worse!).
It's more convenient if you want immediate access or a game and have no nearby shops and a fast internet connection, or the game will be installed on a LOT of machines for you to use, or the game is stupid and a hard copy requires the CD to play.

Steam is just a slightly sugar coated version of the DRM in Spore, in that you can download and install anywhere, but you definitely can't resell, Valve can kill your whole account (and ALL games) or it can get hijacked with just one login.
Plus it's horrible if you go from living with siblings and sharing games to living on your own and still all want to play the games on one Steam account (but different games, e.g. TF2 and HL2) in different places e.g. college vs home.

There are also equal risks of authentication servers going down (although with Spore you only lose one game, whereas with Steam you lose all games on that account).

I thought there were more advantages to Steam. It really sounds like a lot more trouble/risk and potential expense.

I wonder what the ratio of Steam owners to hardcopy owners is?
There's probably some overlap (both) here as well.

Seems like convenience really is the biggest advantage then (most likely over simplified).

Spore's DRM is only something people complain about because they are idiots (IMO).
3 isn't a great number, but it's not a hard number either, it's a soft cap that can be extended if you ask. And it should also be enough to last at least a while. It may even be that EA will give up on it eventually once the sequel or similar is out and allow free reign for users to install as many times as they want (when they can no longer be bothered to deal with the hassle).

I guess I'm just an idiot then

The install limit is just absurd. I've gone four MB's just this year, so I'd be more out of luck than I already have been.

The other thing that really bothers me is that if I uninstall the game, I have to go through all kinds of gyrations and get third party utilities to remove all traces of the program.
That or re-install my OS, which really gets to be a pain sometimes.

To me it's just an erosion of my Rights, and there's been far too much erosion of them already.
Other people don't see things this way and that's fine - it's their opinion and their Right to do so.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: BD2003
A simple cd-check is one thing, but a disc can be passed around after youre done. They dont want you lending or selling the game at all. They want EVERYONE to buy it. You cant even have two accounts for the same game (http://www.destructoid.com/blo...-says-ea-102729.phtml) - if your SO wants to keep her stuff separate from yours, thats another $50!

They spend all this money on stopping casual pirating because unlike mass piracy (bittorrent, etc), they can actually do something about this. Pirates will pirate. But if I'm done with a game, and I want to lend it to a friend (who obviously has to install it), is that piracy? Just about everyone would say no, but no matter how you slice it, having the friend borrow instead of buy = one less potential sale, so they want to stop it. This also effectively destroys the secondary used game market for spore.

Sorry, but it seems obvious that they are trying to stop all piracy, not just casual piracy. Mass Effect, using the same DRM, did effectively stop "all" piracy for about two weeks. There have been games, specifically starforce protected games, that have never been cracked. Casual pirating is a big concern for these companies, sure, but it's not their only concern. I'm sure they realize that most protection schemes will eventually be cracked. That still doesn't mean they aren't going to try and find one that will.

I dont think youre catching the nuance of what I'm trying to say. Obviously, they want to stop all piracy, mass and casual. Mass piracy is *very* difficult to protect against, and once its cracked, its cracked for good. Casual is easier to deal with, but it needs to be controlled on a user by user basis, not on an internet-wide basis.

Essentially, mass piracy is their initial concern, casual piracy their ongoing concern. Because of DRMs miserable track record at stopping mass piracy, it would be an astonishingly stupid business decision to waste any more resources combating such a futile war, one thats been raging for 20 years and they've only lost more and more ground. So that clearly cant be their only rationale.

The DRM leaves a bad enough taste in consumers mouths, but even worse would be if they come out and stated that the reason we haven't removed the DRM after it hit the net widespread is because theyre still concerned about joe schmoe lending and reselling their game. They need that boogeyman, and if they ever throw up the white flag against the bad guys (pirates) and stripped the DRM, they could never again justify putting it up against the good guys (consumers) ever again.

I have a feeling EA wants spore to be a huge franchise like the Sims, and for that to happen, they need to get the initial product into as many willing hands as possible. This just isnt the way, they are just being WAY too short sighted here.

The main point I'm trying to make is that I refuse to accept that the decision to put in and keep in the DRM is a decision made out of ignorance, arrogance or stupidity on EA's part. There's very smart people at EA weighing the scales between lost current sales with DRM and lost future sales due to reselling, trading and borrowing without DRM. DRM is still apparently ahead in their calculations.

It would be absolutely trivial to strip the DRM out via a tiny patch. But they have shown no intention of doing so. Since the game is all over the torrents, the only reason remaining to keep the DRM is casual piracy and reselling. Even though stopping mass piracy is the ulitmate goal behind the DRM, the mass pirates on bitorrent are simply no longer part of the equation of keeping it.

Which is why I'll hold to the idea that the continued existence of this DRM is 100% an assault on their paying consumers, mass piracy being only the scapegoat. Everyone that says "If only pirates stopped pirating, this would all go away" just doesnt get it.

 

[wanderer27]

Well, here's a bit of news for everyone.

I just got a response back from the EFF.
They are discussing it internally, but they have not yet decided if they are going to take any action on it.

May turn out nothing happens, but at least they are aware and considering it.


:thumbsup:

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I dont think youre catching the nuance of what I'm trying to say. Obviously, they want to stop all piracy, mass and casual. Mass piracy is *very* difficult to protect against, and once its cracked, its cracked for good. Casual is easier to deal with, but it needs to be controlled on a user by user basis, not on an internet-wide basis.

I agree with you. They want to stop casual piracy. The three install limit and activation is proof of that. But you're saying that they obvious want to stop all piracy right? So why did you write this..

Originally posted by: BD2003
It was never meant to stop it from hitting the torrents - if that was the case, they would have disabled it the second it did, as it would then be pointless protection just there to annoy their consumers.

I'm saying that the DRM was developed to stop all piracy, torrents, casual copying etc.. like what was accomplished with Mass Effect. The game wasn't cracked for 2 weeks, which stopped all piracy during that time period. I hate to drive this into the ground, but you're contradicting yourself when you say "It was never meant to stop it from hitting the torrents" in one post, and then in another post you say "Obviously, they want to stop all piracy, mass and casual." Whether or not their main goal was stopping casual copying is irrelevant.

The reasons behind wanting to stop all piracy, if only for a few days, are pretty clear. They believe they will make more money that way. For all we know that might be the case. Without going back in time we have no way of knowing if Spore would have sold the same or worse if it wasn't cracked right away.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Which is why I'll hold to the idea that the continued existence of this DRM is 100% an assault on their paying consumers, mass piracy being only the scapegoat. Everyone that says "If only pirates stopped pirating, this would all go away" just doesnt get it.

DRM is an attack on piracy of all forms. Right now the DRM included with Spore is only hurting legit customers. That is true and i'm very much against that. But the further development of DRM is meant as a solution to stop all piracy. Don't believe me. Read this: http://www.securom.com/solution_general.asp

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
Well, here's a bit of news for everyone.

I just got a response back from the EFF.
They are discussing it internally, but they have not yet decided if they are going to take any action on it.

May turn out nothing happens, but at least they are aware and considering it.


:thumbsup:

Very good news. Glad to hear that.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
I'm saying that the DRM was developed to stop all piracy, torrents, casual copying etc.. like what was accomplished with Mass Effect. The game wasn't cracked for 2 weeks, which stopped all piracy during that time period. I hate to drive this into the ground, but you're contradicting yourself when you say "It was never meant to stop it from hitting the torrents" in one post, and then in another post you say "Obviously, they want to stop all piracy, mass and casual." Whether or not their main goal was stopping casual copying is irrelevant.

The reasons behind wanting to stop all piracy, if only for a few days, are pretty clear. They believe they will make more money that way. For all we know that might be the case. Without going back in time we have no way of knowing if Spore would have sold the same or worse if it wasn't cracked right away.

What I meant by that was that they know as good as anyone how little of a chance they have in stopping mass piracy for very long, that any delay in it hitting the torrents is essentially a bonus. Mass effect was a fluke. An impressive fluke nonetheless, but hardly some breakthrough in DRM, the fact that Spore hit the torrents several days before release is a return to normalcy.

Them wanting to stop all kinds of piracy goes without saying, the usual line that theyre doing this cause of the pirates and actually believe this is the DRM will stop it is what I don't buy.

Originally posted by: mindcycle
DRM is an attack on piracy of all forms. Right now the DRM included with Spore is only hurting legit customers. That is true and i'm very much against that. But the further development of DRM is meant as a solution to stop all piracy. Don't believe me. Read this: http://www.securom.com/solution_general.asp

I'm not saying that they dont wish it would stop all piracy, and that theyre not going to keep trying. I just dont believe that they're leaving it in after being cracked out of arrogance or stupidity.

I certainly think theres a certain part of EA that feels this is all absolutely justified, and that customers should not only put up with this but should be grateful for it, but I think the majority of it is crunching numbers and taking their customers for granted, plain and simple.

What bothers me most is how theyre willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Every DVD has DRM, but few people care because its hardly an inconvenience. You dont have to jump through hoops to use it. Theres no 1-800 number to call when you've watched your DVD too many times. Theyre not trying to stop you from reselling or lending it. There will never come a time when you cant put that DVD in a DVD player and get the full use out of it.

MSN music had DRMed their music, and when they took those servers offline, they went as far as to offer a refund to everyone that bought music from them. I can hardly imagine EA doing the same when they take their activation servers down.

A world with no DRM would be wonderful, but the DRM protecting PC games is the absolute worst of any kind I can think of. IMO what they should do is follow the microsoft model - when Vista fails activation, it doesnt shut down or cease to work. All it does is remove the wallpaper and stop updating (except for security updates), and constantly remind you that you "might be a victim of counterfeiting", and provide you with a link to buy it. They combine constant guilt tripping, virtually full use of the product, and an easy way to go legit, all without accusing the user of stealing, but rather implying that the user is the victim. Despite the fact that it limits activation to one machine, any Vista disc will ALWAYS install on a compatible system, even 50 years from now.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
Well, here's a bit of news for everyone.

I just got a response back from the EFF.
They are discussing it internally, but they have not yet decided if they are going to take any action on it.

May turn out nothing happens, but at least they are aware and considering it.


:thumbsup:

Might I be so bold to ask, what the hell would the EFF possibly be able to do other than bring a lawsuit and have it dismissed at EA's behest?

Honestly - if you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. If you don't like the EULA, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

What the EFF can do... force EA to change their EULA because it violates consumer rights. But what right has been broken here? None... because as is the case of every piece of software out there, you're buying the right to use the software as the licensor sees fit, not how YOU see fit.

Is there a violation of consumer rights in this case? No, not a damn thing. You say "but but... I can only install it 3 times!" Yeah, then EA has a system in place to extend the installations initially issued. Hence a non-issue.

The only thing you can possibly to is send a message with your wallet.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Might I be so bold to ask, what the hell would the EFF possibly be able to do other than bring a lawsuit and have it dismissed at EA's behest?

Honestly - if you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. If you don't like the EULA, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

What the EFF can do... force EA to change their EULA because it violates consumer rights. But what right has been broken here? None... because as is the case of every piece of software out there, you're buying the right to use the software as the licensor sees fit, not how YOU see fit.

Is there a violation of consumer rights in this case? No, not a damn thing. You say "but but... I can only install it 3 times!" Yeah, then EA has a system in place to extend the installations initially issued. Hence a non-issue.

The only thing you can possibly to is send a message with your wallet.

I have to somewhat disagree on that point - sending a message with your wallet is going to make the most important of all points, but the very vocal outcry and publicizing of the issue with the amazon reviews and the press that has gotten it will also go a long way.

Drawing a comparison to politics, voting for/against a candidate or issue theoretically gets the results in the end, but vocal protest goes a very long way towards positive progress and shaping the issues on the table - civil rights in the 60s for instance.

With the public being very clear that the reason theyre not buying spore is the DRM, that forces EA to consider its sales in that context, and to consider changing their ways.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I know a couple people already who are choosing not to buy it due to DRM and are downloading it instead. They really wanted access to the online content and were willing to pay for it until they found out about this problem. They are not the kind of people who pirate most things either. They typically buy everything they want.

There is no doubt in my mind that EA would have made more money if they just stuck with the other methods of anti-piracy. As long as the usual rule of no online content with the pirated copy applies then that would have been enough since the game seems pretty cool and the online content is supposed to be worth paying for. They shot themselves in the foot here.

sorry, that line of thinking doesn't make sense. What is the problem the only 3 installs? Then buy it and pirate it after the DRM makes it unplayable. But to pirate it from the beginning the day of the release is just funny. People who have already pirated this game never intended to buy it, otherwise they would have at least waited to see if there were other ways around the DRM and still buy it.

One problem with 3 installs comes when you have people who wish to install the game for themselves on multiple computers such as their home PC as well as their laptop. Then you have the people who tend to upgrade often enough to the point where they will run out of installs too fast. New mobo = new install according to the DRM. While this sort of thing may not matter to you, it matters to many other people and these people should not be treated like criminals to do so.

The bottom line here is that EA knew this game would be pirated which is exactly what is happening. It happened before the release for that matter. The pirated copies have no access to online content as usual. The DRM has done nothing to reduce pirating. It is only harming the legit user while the pirates are getting the exact same thing that they usually get even when the traditional methods of anti-piracy that do not inconvenience the legit user as much are used. They are also getting what they usually get just as easily. So, what's the point? It's not like EA doesn't know that what I am saying is true. Why do they continue to inconvenience the user like this?

The best anti-piracy method out there is to create a quality game with online content/features which make the game worth paying for. They seem to have done that with Spore. Why go through all of that work only to shoot themselves in the foot by tossing in DRM which will do nothing but negatively impact sales?

I fully agree that EA made a mistake with this stupid DRM. I don't like it, but I also wanted to play the game so I bought it. What I was arguing is people who say they pirated it because of the DRM, these people would have pirated it anyway.

I still hope they will take off some of this DRM, mainly the 3 installs one. I am in that group, have a laptop and PC and want it on both. But don't want to run out of installs right away.

Some pirates are just looking for excuse to pirate the game :i t has DRM, so it is ok to pirate it - but it is never ok to pirate a game.

Personally, I won't touch it ever just because of DRM.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: BD2003
What I meant by that was that they know as good as anyone how little of a chance they have in stopping mass piracy for very long, that any delay in it hitting the torrents is essentially a bonus. Mass effect was a fluke. An impressive fluke nonetheless, but hardly some breakthrough in DRM, the fact that Spore hit the torrents several days before release is a return to normalcy.

Sure i'll agree that Spore is a return to normalcy. Most games are cracked right away. but.. DRM is still made with the intention of stopping torrent/internet pirating for as long as possible, and (some) DRM schemes have been successful in that respect. A recent example is Alone in the Dark. It was just recently cracked, like within the last week or so, and it's been out since June 23rd. An older example would be Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. It was released in late march 2005 and wasn't cracked for over a year. I know that because I was heavily into pirating around that time. I could provide you a link to back both of that up, but i'm pretty sure that wouldn't be allowed here. There are many others that follow that same trend. There is also a rather lengthy list of games that have never been cracked. Mostly due to lack of interest in the game, but they still exist. Most of them are starforce protected.

I agree with you that EA isn't stupid and they are probably focusing way more on casual piracy than anything else. It makes sense that they would do that. Probably what will happen with this new SecuROM garbage is the same thing that happened with starforce. A bunch of games are released with the protection, people complain, computers crash, etc.. then they drop it because people are no longer willing to buy games with that particular type of DRM, which is reflected in the sales. Then a new "better" reiteration appears a couple months/years later and wreaks havoc on systems and users and the cycle continues yet again.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Them wanting to stop all kinds of piracy goes without saying, the usual line that theyre doing this cause of the pirates and actually believe this is the DRM will stop it is what I don't buy.

I agree it's not their number one priority, but it's still a priority. The only thing I can figure is that they think stopping internet piracy will increase sales. It might. But I think treating your actual paying customers right will increase sales even more. That's my opinion at least.

Originally posted by: BD2003
I'm not saying that they dont wish it would stop all piracy, and that theyre not going to keep trying. I just dont believe that they're leaving it in after being cracked out of arrogance or stupidity.

I agree.

Originally posted by: BD2003
I certainly think theres a certain part of EA that feels this is all absolutely justified, and that customers should not only put up with this but should be grateful for it, but I think the majority of it is crunching numbers and taking their customers for granted, plain and simple.

Yes, that's what I think too. We're on the same page here I think. The difference in our arguments is what the DRM is trying to do overall. I think we can both agree that their main focus is on casual pirating and the used game market, which is a 100% bad move on their part.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: coloumb

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

Doubtful that's the reason. If it was - then why don't console games have the same restrictions? Publishers don't see a dime from rental and used console game sales. Imagine if PC games had the same luxury... A PC games version of gamefly... I'd definitely subscribe to that service in a heartbeat.

Most people typically install a game ONCE on their own PC and usually never re-install it again. Those who need to have unlimited or multiple installations do so because they want to avoid having to buy the game to install it on another system [SPORE discussion is filled with "can I install it on multiple PC's"...]

Unless I'm re-installing the Operating System - I rarely ever re-install a game. If I do - it's only because the publisher has released an add-on pack that requires the original game or it's a multi-player game which has renewed my interest.

See a trend here? DRM is in place to prevent joe schmoe from letting 10 friends borrow his copy or make copies - that's all. DRM isn't preventing you from reselling your game - if you reach the install limit, you just call up the publisher and get it re-activated.

As for EA's roadmap - it sounds like they want to try and go to a 100% digital media format similar to STEAM.

Seeing as how Sony has a patent pending that will lock their ps3 games to the first console they are played on i do think we are onto something.....

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Might I be so bold to ask, what the hell would the EFF possibly be able to do other than bring a lawsuit and have it dismissed at EA's behest?

Honestly - if you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. If you don't like the EULA, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

What the EFF can do... force EA to change their EULA because it violates consumer rights. But what right has been broken here? None... because as is the case of every piece of software out there, you're buying the right to use the software as the licensor sees fit, not how YOU see fit.

Is there a violation of consumer rights in this case? No, not a damn thing. You say "but but... I can only install it 3 times!" Yeah, then EA has a system in place to extend the installations initially issued. Hence a non-issue.

The only thing you can possibly to is send a message with your wallet.

I have to somewhat disagree on that point - sending a message with your wallet is going to make the most important of all points, but the very vocal outcry and publicizing of the issue with the amazon reviews and the press that has gotten it will also go a long way.

Drawing a comparison to politics, voting for/against a candidate or issue theoretically gets the results in the end, but vocal protest goes a very long way towards positive progress and shaping the issues on the table - civil rights in the 60s for instance.

With the public being very clear that the reason theyre not buying spore is the DRM, that forces EA to consider its sales in that context, and to consider changing their ways.

I was referring to the potential thought of a lawsuit over this. Of course it's a stupid business model. Of course this is the most litigious country in the world - it's THE American way. But is this issue valid under any legal context for a lawsuit? Nope.

Be as vocal as you want and hope someone listens. Be frugal with your money, and once sales turn out to be a bust, you're damn sure someone is going to listen.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Might I be so bold to ask, what the hell would the EFF possibly be able to do other than bring a lawsuit and have it dismissed at EA's behest?

Honestly - if you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. If you don't like the EULA, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

What the EFF can do... force EA to change their EULA because it violates consumer rights. But what right has been broken here? None... because as is the case of every piece of software out there, you're buying the right to use the software as the licensor sees fit, not how YOU see fit.

Is there a violation of consumer rights in this case? No, not a damn thing. You say "but but... I can only install it 3 times!" Yeah, then EA has a system in place to extend the installations initially issued. Hence a non-issue.

The only thing you can possibly to is send a message with your wallet.

I have to somewhat disagree on that point - sending a message with your wallet is going to make the most important of all points, but the very vocal outcry and publicizing of the issue with the amazon reviews and the press that has gotten it will also go a long way.

Drawing a comparison to politics, voting for/against a candidate or issue theoretically gets the results in the end, but vocal protest goes a very long way towards positive progress and shaping the issues on the table - civil rights in the 60s for instance.

With the public being very clear that the reason theyre not buying spore is the DRM, that forces EA to consider its sales in that context, and to consider changing their ways.

I was referring to the potential thought of a lawsuit over this. Of course it's a stupid business model. Of course this is the most litigious country in the world - it's THE American way. But is this issue valid under any legal context for a lawsuit? Nope.

Be as vocal as you want and hope someone listens. Be frugal with your money, and once sales turn out to be a bust, you're damn sure someone is going to listen.

You are both correct for the most part. Lawsuits won't work here unless the lawyers dig up something to work with which I don't believe they can do. This leaves us with bad publicity, voting with our wallets, and making it as simple as possible and as well known as possible on how to work around the security. There is nothing more anyone can do.

With that said, what has happened with spore's publicity and the fact that it was available via torrent before the release date is a good thing for those who are against DRM.

 

[Cogman]

I just read over the amazon reviews. I really, really, hope that the EA higher ups saw that and said "Gee, people really don't like all this DRM". Unless spore is released without the DRM it now has (Even just a Securom version ect) I won't buy it. They have taken a game they could have made into a "Sims" like classic and destroyed it completely. Good job EA, It seems your customer disservice workers are working harder then ever.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Cogman
I just read over the amazon reviews. I really, really, hope that the EA higher ups saw that and said "Gee, people really don't like all this DRM". Unless spore is released without the DRM it now has (Even just a Securom version ect) I won't buy it. They have taken a game they could have made into a "Sims" like classic and destroyed it completely. Good job EA, It seems your customer disservice workers are working harder then ever.

I dont think its beyond redemption yet - they can still do plenty of things to say this right now.

They could just plain strip the DRM out - highly unlikely.

At the very least, they could really tone it down by allowing many more installs - they should allow for the number of installs to refresh every year/few months, to ease the pain for upgrades over time. I cant tell you the number of times I've reinstalled starcraft, but I doubt its been 3 times per year.

They should also make an absolute promise to the public that if those activation servers ever go down, they will release a patch that will strip all the DRM.

The same forces that spread the protest can spread the redemption. They have the opportunity to make the audience feel empowered and turn themselves from the bad guy to the humbled. They NEED to - this game is too important to them.

And if just for the sake of me, I really want to buy this game. Pleeeeeease!!!

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Cogman
I just read over the amazon reviews. I really, really, hope that the EA higher ups saw that and said "Gee, people really don't like all this DRM". Unless spore is released without the DRM it now has (Even just a Securom version ect) I won't buy it. They have taken a game they could have made into a "Sims" like classic and destroyed it completely. Good job EA, It seems your customer disservice workers are working harder then ever.

I dont think its beyond redemption yet - they can still do plenty of things to say this right now.

They could just plain strip the DRM out - highly unlikely.

At the very least, they could really tone it down by allowing many more installs - they should allow for the number of installs to refresh every year/few months, to ease the pain for upgrades over time. I cant tell you the number of times I've reinstalled starcraft, but I doubt its been 3 times per year.

They should also make an absolute promise to the public that if those activation servers ever go down, they will release a patch that will strip all the DRM.

The same forces that spread the protest can spread the redemption. They have the opportunity to make the audience feel empowered and turn themselves from the bad guy to the humbled. They NEED to - this game is too important to them.

And if just for the sake of me, I really want to buy this game. Pleeeeeease!!!

Well they have toned it down once (they originally planned for 10 day reactivation), and with Red Alert 3 they've changed it to being 5 installs before oy uhave to contact them for more.

The Sacred 2 thread in this forum has a mention of Securom/install activation stuff, including being able to revoke activations.
There is scope for them to improve the customer friendliness of the DRM without getting rid of it completely, but whether they will do it or not with Spore remains to be seen. They do seem to have taken note for future releases though such as the mentioned RA5 which will have 5 installs.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: BD2003

They should also make an absolute promise to the public that if those activation servers ever go down, they will release a patch that will strip all the DRM.

This is one of my biggest issues with what they're doing.
I just don't know that I trust them to release their control (and basically that's what it is) of the game.


I'd really like to check the game out as well, but it's just not going to happen under the current environment.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Cogman
I just read over the amazon reviews. I really, really, hope that the EA higher ups saw that and said "Gee, people really don't like all this DRM". Unless spore is released without the DRM it now has (Even just a Securom version ect) I won't buy it. They have taken a game they could have made into a "Sims" like classic and destroyed it completely. Good job EA, It seems your customer disservice workers are working harder then ever.

I dont think its beyond redemption yet - they can still do plenty of things to say this right now.

They could just plain strip the DRM out - highly unlikely.

At the very least, they could really tone it down by allowing many more installs - they should allow for the number of installs to refresh every year/few months, to ease the pain for upgrades over time. I cant tell you the number of times I've reinstalled starcraft, but I doubt its been 3 times per year.

They should also make an absolute promise to the public that if those activation servers ever go down, they will release a patch that will strip all the DRM.

The same forces that spread the protest can spread the redemption. They have the opportunity to make the audience feel empowered and turn themselves from the bad guy to the humbled. They NEED to - this game is too important to them.

And if just for the sake of me, I really want to buy this game. Pleeeeeease!!!

Well they have toned it down once (they originally planned for 10 day reactivation), and with Red Alert 3 they've changed it to being 5 installs before oy uhave to contact them for more.

The Sacred 2 thread in this forum has a mention of Securom/install activation stuff, including being able to revoke activations.
There is scope for them to improve the customer friendliness of the DRM without getting rid of it completely, but whether they will do it or not with Spore remains to be seen. They do seem to have taken note for future releases though such as the mentioned RA5 which will have 5 installs.

Capping the number of installs for a game is just dumb by any standard. I have multiple games that go through the install, play for a while, uninstall. phase. Heck, I have even installed windows XP more then a dozen times. Going from 3 installs to 5 installs isn't toning down IMO. Thats like calling an 8.5 earthquake toned down from an 8.50001 earth quake.

The entire Idea is dumb. It destroys replay-ability of a game, which is a major purchasing factor for me. Of course, we are talking about EA, the company that releases the same game every year with minor additions for the exact same price. Its like they think nobody will ever replay their games...

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Cogman
The entire Idea is dumb. It destroys replay-ability of a game, which is a major purchasing factor for me. Of course, we are talking about EA, the company that releases the same game every year with minor additions for the exact same price. Its like they think nobody will ever replay their games...

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that theyd rather repackage it and sell it to you again.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to believe that corporate arrogance is actually a fairly large factor here. They are banking on the fact that people want Spore enough to deal with this, and once theyve set the precedent and people have accepted the DRM, theyll have justification to continue with it.

I desperately want to buy this game. I've had many moments of weakness over the past week when I thought to myself that it almost might be worth putting up with the DRM, but I just cant bring myself to do it. Its so tragic - I'm really holding out on them easing the restrictions to something reasonable before I bite the bullet.

I've heard conflicting reports on this - does anyone know for sure that if you go through the uninstall process, that it "gives back" an install?

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Cogman
The entire Idea is dumb. It destroys replay-ability of a game, which is a major purchasing factor for me. Of course, we are talking about EA, the company that releases the same game every year with minor additions for the exact same price. Its like they think nobody will ever replay their games...

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that theyd rather repackage it and sell it to you again.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to believe that corporate arrogance is actually a fairly large factor here. They are banking on the fact that people want Spore enough to deal with this, and once theyve set the precedent and people have accepted the DRM, theyll have justification to continue with it.

I desperately want to buy this game. I've had many moments of weakness over the past week when I thought to myself that it almost might be worth putting up with the DRM, but I just cant bring myself to do it. Its so tragic - I'm really holding out on them easing the restrictions to something reasonable before I bite the bullet.

I've heard conflicting reports on this - does anyone know for sure that if you go through the uninstall process, that it "gives back" an install?

I've read that uninstalling doesn't give you credit back like it supposedly did on Bioshock(?).

I can't recall if I saw that through official channels or just on one of the many boards though.

This may another reason the outrage level is so high, because if you could get a credit back that would "soften" things somewhat.

 

[bullbert]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
This may another reason the outrage level is so high, because if you could get a credit back that would "soften" things somewhat.

Mostly, the outrage stems from customers being accustomed to BUYING software, and not being tricked into LIMITED TERM RENTALS of software. But that is the direction that a few software publishers are pushing. Until customers go brain dead or just give up and accept the new paradigm, expect a public outrage with each new title with this type of DRM.