Spore / DRM / EA / PC Game Industry

[bullbert]

Originally posted by: Cogman
The entire Idea is dumb. It destroys replay-ability of a game, which is a major purchasing factor for me.

Exactly. Look at all the new players to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, only due to the announcement of the coming sequel in the next months for Fallout 3. I purchased both games over 10 years ago and still have the original packaging, but with no current support whatsoever from the publishers of these two titles, only the technically literate can get the original formats to run with current hardware and OSes.

There is no guarantee that the current publishers will be around in 10 years, and in fact, the market expectation is that only one of the current publishers will be around in 10 years. So under our current market experiences, the current crop of DRMs will prevent you from reliving your gaming memories, even as soon as within just a year or two, when the companies that maintain the DRM licensing servers go the way of the dinosaur.

But that (the lack of replayability) is exactly what the current large publishers want. The current large publishers do NOT want you to reinstall GameFranchise: The Original or GameFranchise: The Sequel to relive the gaming experience of the prequels. While you wait for GameFranchise: 3D, the current large publishers want you to spend $50 on six or seven other current new games, each with a gaming lifespan of 10 to 60 hours.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: bullbert

Originally posted by: Cogman
The entire Idea is dumb. It destroys replay-ability of a game, which is a major purchasing factor for me.

Exactly. Look at all the new players to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, only due to the announcement of the coming sequel in the next months for Fallout 3. I purchased both games over 10 years ago and still have the original packaging, but with no current support whatsoever from the publishers of these two titles, only the technically literate can get the original formats to run with current hardware and OSes.

There is no guarantee that the current publishers will be around in 10 years, and in fact, the market expectation is that only one of the current publishers will be around in 10 years. So under our current market experiences, the current crop of DRMs will prevent you from reliving your gaming memories, even as soon as within just a year or two, when the companies that maintain the DRM licensing servers go the way of the dinosaur.

But that (the lack of replayability) is exactly what the current large publishers want. The current large publishers do NOT want you to reinstall GameFranchise: The Original or GameFranchise: The Sequel to relive the gaming experience of the prequels. While you wait for GameFranchise: 3D, the current large publishers want you to spend $50 on six or seven other current new games, each with a gaming lifespan of 10 to 60 hours.

For $12 you can get Fallout and Fallout 2, downloadable from Good Old Games, and they are supported to work with XP and Vista. (Well, it may only be open to beta participants for the moment).
The games may not be free for the extra support, but there is support to allow them to work now on new operating systems without the requirement to be technically literate.

Also talking of old games, EA just released Red Alert for free. Everyone is bitching about current copy protection and how they might not be able to reinstall their games in 10 years or whatever, but then EA and other companies (e.g. Rockstar/Take2 with GTA/2) release old games for free. Definitely no copy protection there.

 

[IEC]

This is why you should never use draconian DRM - Spore on Amazon with a whopping 1 star rating!

 

[coloumb]

Hrm... I guess all of the huff-n-puffng going on over at Amazon isn't doing anything to sales of the game:

http://www.informationweek.com...ml?articleID=210600930

"Spore, nonetheless, is the second-most-popular PC game title on Amazon at the moment in terms of sales.

Other top-selling PC game titles on Amazon have been reviewed dozens or, at best, a few hundred times, though with far more favorable ratings.

"There has been a lot of discussion about the DRM in Spore, and the team at EA and Maxis wanted to clarify how the system works, and why it's in place," an EA spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. "Our system works just like online music services that limit the number of machines you can play a song on. This system is an effort to control piracy. You can install the game on three computers -- at your office, at home, or for your family. What you can't do is make and distribute a thousand copies online. If you feel like your situation presents special circumstances, contact our customer service and we'll talk through it with you."

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Hrm... I guess all of the huff-n-puffng going on over at Amazon isn't doing anything to sales of the game:

http://www.informationweek.com...ml?articleID=210600930

"Spore, nonetheless, is the second-most-popular PC game title on Amazon at the moment in terms of sales.

Other top-selling PC game titles on Amazon have been reviewed dozens or, at best, a few hundred times, though with far more favorable ratings.

"There has been a lot of discussion about the DRM in Spore, and the team at EA and Maxis wanted to clarify how the system works, and why it's in place," an EA spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. "Our system works just like online music services that limit the number of machines you can play a song on. This system is an effort to control piracy. You can install the game on three computers -- at your office, at home, or for your family. What you can't do is make and distribute a thousand copies online. If you feel like your situation presents special circumstances, contact our customer service and we'll talk through it with you."

Eh, its up there in a sea of preorders, I wouldnt be surprised to see it fall off pretty quick...time will tell. The DRM probably isnt a big deal to the really casual audience - yet, at least.

Still, I cant imagine theyve sold as many copies as they could have without the DRM. The dialogue about it on the internet is about the DRM, not the game, and IMO they shot their load too soon with the creator - no one is in awe of it anymore, the game is simply overshadowed now.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: coloumb
"There has been a lot of discussion about the DRM in Spore, and the team at EA and Maxis wanted to clarify how the system works, and why it's in place," an EA spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. "Our system works just like online music services that limit the number of machines you can play a song on. This system is an effort to control piracy. You can install the game on three computers -- at your office, at home, or for your family. What you can't do is make and distribute a thousand copies online. If you feel like your situation presents special circumstances, contact our customer service and we'll talk through it with you."

It's actually not stopping online piracy at all. That's what's hilarious about this statement. All it's doing is inconveniencing people who are buying the game. They obviously know this, and by making this statement it's clear to me that they're using the piracy scapegoat once again to hide their real objective, which is shutting down the used market. Basically forcing everyone who wants the game to buy a brand new copy.

I'm glad the second page of the article actually lays out the truth.

EA's effort to control piracy appears to have been defeated before Spore launched, however. A week prior to Spore's official release, a "warez" group cracked the game, removed its copy protection, and made it available over BitTorrent. One of the major complaints about DRM is that it only inconveniences law-abiding customers.

What needs to happen now is people need to realize what their main objective really is. Why the 3 install limit is actually in place. EA will happily hide behind online piracy until the real issue is brought up, and even then they'll probably skim around it like this.

I would be interested to know how many copies have actually been sold at this point. The article fails to mention that. I think they were predicting 2 million within the first week or something like that. I wonder what the number actually was. Sure, they'll tell us it's a top selling game, they're not worried, etc.. but I bet it's just another lie.

 

[bullbert]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
For $12 you can get Fallout and Fallout 2, downloadable from Good Old Games, and they are supported to work with XP and Vista. (Well, it may only be open to beta participants for the moment). The games may not be free for the extra support, but there is support to allow them to work now on new operating systems without the requirement to be technically literate.

Yes, but what you are suggesting is that I buy the games AGAIN. And when GOG goes bankrupt, will you suggest that I buy the games STILL AGAIN when Windows WishingWell2010 is announced and a new GOG2 company is started? Sounds a lot like having to pay rental...

Too bad that $0.00 of that goes to the original developers. And both games already work with Vista, or at least they did this Spring '08 (when I last replayed them after learning of the Fallout 3 resurrection), long before GOG announced their new sales revival. I am still waiting for the stuff to hit the fan, when the lawyers finally decide that they can 'help".

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: coloumb
"There has been a lot of discussion about the DRM in Spore, and the team at EA and Maxis wanted to clarify how the system works, and why it's in place," an EA spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. "Our system works just like online music services that limit the number of machines you can play a song on. This system is an effort to control piracy. You can install the game on three computers -- at your office, at home, or for your family. What you can't do is make and distribute a thousand copies online. If you feel like your situation presents special circumstances, contact our customer service and we'll talk through it with you."

It's actually not stopping online piracy at all. That's what's hilarious about this statement. All it's doing is inconveniencing people who are buying the game. They obviously know this, and by making this statement it's clear to me that they're using the piracy scapegoat once again to hide their real objective, which is shutting down the used market. Basically forcing everyone who wants the game to buy a brand new copy.

I'm glad the second page of the article actually lays out the truth.

EA's effort to control piracy appears to have been defeated before Spore launched, however. A week prior to Spore's official release, a "warez" group cracked the game, removed its copy protection, and made it available over BitTorrent. One of the major complaints about DRM is that it only inconveniences law-abiding customers.

What needs to happen now is people need to realize what their main objective really is. Why the 3 install limit is actually in place. EA will happily hide behind online piracy until the real issue is brought up, and even then they'll probably skim around it like this.

I would be interested to know how many copies have actually been sold at this point. The article fails to mention that. I think they were predicting 2 million within the first week or something like that. I wonder what the number actually was. Sure, they'll tell us it's a top selling game, they're not worried, etc.. but I bet it's just another lie.

I haven't bought the game - but does it state in the install agreement that you can't resell the game? Mass Effect had a similar DRM setup and I sold that game about a month after I purchased it [haven't heard any complaints from the buyer either].

 

[BD2003]

And its kind of silly that theyre partially doing this over resale...the PC game resale market isnt nearly as huge as it is for consoles.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! When I purchase the software, I should have the right to use it however I want!

THAT'S THE POINT!

Simply writing up a EULA does NOT give EA power to do whatever they want. Past legal precedent has demonstrated this. Game developers like to pretend that EULAs are legally binding contracts. Fortunately, EULA < consumer rights no matter how badly they want to trample those rights.

If I want to take apart my toaster and use the parts in something else, THAT'S MY GOD DAMN RIGHT AS A CONSUMER! I can use the toaster anywhere in the world any number of times!

How do people like you become this badly brainwashed? WTF happened to enable you to lay down and be steamrolled by such a stupid idea? What gives you the impression that you have no rights and no right to complain?

Anyone who claims that I have no rights as a consumer can fuck off. I find these people are more despicable than history's worst mass murderers. I can not stress how badly these people deserve to be launched into the sun.

History lesson for you

This is an example of the first-sale doctrine. It has already been established by the Supreme Court that once a copyrighted work is sold (like Spore), the purchaser my sell or give away that copy without permission. Once that copy is sold, the copyright holder loses all rights to control change of ownership! It was established in 1908 and has been held up in court numerous times. To summarize, attempting to prevent the consumer from being able to sell or give away their copy of the software is illegal. If this is ever brought to court, EA has no chance of winning.

You may recall some time ago when the DeCSS code came out. It's just another example of first-sale doctrine. When I purchase a DVD player, it is my right to use it on any operating system that I see fit. Likewise, when I purchase a DVD it is my right to use it in any DVD player and play it with whatever software I want, and the copyright holders' rights of distribution are extinguished upon purchase.

 

[Markbnj]

To summarize, attempting to prevent the consumer from being able to sell or give away their copy of the software is illegal. If this is ever brought to court, EA has no chance of winning.

Copyright law is still evolving too, and this might be why almost all software OEM's now word their licenses such that you are buying the right to use the software, and are not buying "a copy" as you would a book. I agree, though, that the bulk of current precedent is against the software business on this specific point.

On a related note, I installed Spore the night before last, and playing through to see what it's like. The DRM hasn't caused me any hassles at all, and it's nice not having to find the DVD in order to start the game.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: coloumb

I haven't bought the game - but does it state in the install agreement that you can't resell the game? Mass Effect had a similar DRM setup and I sold that game about a month after I purchased it [haven't heard any complaints from the buyer either].

If you sold the game that's cool. Did you tell the buyer one of the 3 activations was already used? I also wonder if they'll run into problems if they try to download any of the additional content (assuming you registered your serial number online to download that already).. I might try to sell my copy since I didn't even get to play it due to constant crashes.

I'm sure it doesn't specifically say you don't have the right to resell the game, but they're assuming most people won't want to sell a game with limited activations (or buy a used copy for that matter). Sure you can call EA, but how many people are actually going to go thought that hassle? It's like a little loophole in the law. They aren't outright telling you you can't sell the game but they know most people won't try.

 

[Calculator83]

all u freaking hypocrites with ur 250gb per month bandwidth usage. LIARS, ur all stealing as we speak

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

To summarize, attempting to prevent the consumer from being able to sell or give away their copy of the software is illegal. If this is ever brought to court, EA has no chance of winning.

Copyright law is still evolving too, and this might be why almost all software OEM's now word their licenses such that you are buying the right to use the software, and are not buying "a copy" as you would a book. I agree, though, that the bulk of current precedent is against the software business on this specific point.

On a related note, I installed Spore the night before last, and playing through to see what it's like. The DRM hasn't caused me any hassles at all, and it's nice not having to find the DVD in order to start the game.

I've heard this many times now. Sure, the DRM isn't much of a hassle if everything goes right, and not having the DVD in the drive is nice, I actually agree with you there. I bought Mass Effect and felt the same way at first. I'm sure it's worked without problems for lots of people as well. The fact of the matter is that if you are opposed to SecuROM and what EA is doing whatsoever then you shouldn't support them. No matter how easy it is to install or run. I'm assuming you might be since you're posting in this thread.. maybe i'm wrong though.

The main problem I have with EA is they're treating their customers like criminals. More so now than ever before. They know they can't stop piracy, but instead of giving their customers better incentive to actually buy games (like free downloadalbe content, price breaks, free updates, no DRM, etc..) they're throwing roadblocks up and trying milk every possible cent out of the people who do buy their games.

EA cares about one thing.. money. They don't care about gamer/consumer rights, meaningful content, publishing games that are actually finished, the hassles of DRM when it causes problems, etc.. So as consumers, the only action we can take against EA that they will actually listen to is voting with our wallets and not supporting them.

This isn't necessarily geared towards you Markbnj as you may not have a problem with the DRM, it's not clear. But.. if you don't like what EA is doing, don't support them by purchasing their games. If you buy an EA title you are basically voting for the continued use of SecuROM. I think more people need realize that.

 

[coloumb]

Just curious - why isn't the same crowd angry and spewing at the mouth at Valve [STEAM] as well? STEAM is more strict regarding games you purchase - You can't resell the games and you can't access any of their games unless you install and download their client. Isn't this what DRM/Securom is about? Limiting installs to 1 person per game?

Is it because STEAM is a completely non-physical digital format while EA games are physical items you can hold in your hands? And since you're use to being able to do whatever you want with something that's "a piece of solid mass" - it upsets you that you can't do whatever you want with it?

So why not start campaigning against Microsoft, Corel, Adobe, Activision, and any other publisher that implements a "re-activation upon too many installs" setup?

Unless the EULA specifically states that I can't resell the software - I WILL resell the software. I say we burn STEAM at the stake so we can all be greedy profiteers too!!

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Just curious - why isn't the same crowd angry and spewing at the mouth at Valve [STEAM] as well? STEAM is more strict regarding games you purchase - You can't resell the games and you can't access any of their games unless you install and download their client. Isn't this what DRM/Securom is about? Limiting installs to 1 person per game?!

Is it because STEAM is a completely non-physical digital format while EA games are physical items you can hold in your hands? And since you're use to being able to do whatever you want with something that's "a piece of solid mass" - it upsets you that you can't do whatever you want with it?

I actually don't like steam all that much. IMO, steam games should cost less than a physical copy and that's my main problem with it. You're right about physical copies though. IMO you should be able to do what you want with them. Similar to selling a used monitor or a graphics card for instance. You should be able to sell a physical copy of a game for whatever you can get for it in the used market. If you don't care about the option of selling the game, then a digital solution is fine, like steam.

Buying a physical copy of a game and having the license hinder you from being able to sell it is what I have a problem with. It's basically like renting a game. I'd be perfectly fine with the DRM if they were selling it as a rental and charging $10 for it. The problem is they still want to make $50 a game and remove our ability to sell it at the same time. We bought the game. We should be able to easily sell it. That's my whole beef with it. Sure there is other software companies doing the same thing. I don't support them either.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: Calculator83
all u freaking hypocrites with ur 250gb per month bandwidth usage. LIARS, ur all stealing as we speak

:shocked::roll:

 

[Bateluer]

Anyone else find it entering watching the Spore DRM meltdown? Most pirated game ever, despite its draconian DRM. Good investment there, EA.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Just curious - why isn't the same crowd angry and spewing at the mouth at Valve [STEAM] as well? STEAM is more strict regarding games you purchase - You can't resell the games and you can't access any of their games unless you install and download their client. Isn't this what DRM/Securom is about? Limiting installs to 1 person per game?

I've never used Steam but I have used other download services.

If you can download a complete install that you can save on a backup and use to reinstall without having to login/reregister (say after a format), then I could deal with that, otherwise it's restrictive DRM and I don't care for it.

If Steam fails the above test, then I don't care to ever use it.
Also, if this is the case with Steam, then people using it are most likely okay with (restrictive) DRM so it is not an issue to them - that's why they're not on hear complaining.

 

[wanderer27]

In regards to Spore, I find it interesting that we've gone from this last week:


"Of 453,048 activations of the Spore Creature Creator alone, Sughayer says, 77 percent activated on only one machine, 23 percent activated more than one, and only 1 percent of users tried to activate on more than three machines."


To this:


"EA corporate communications rep Mariam Sughayer claims that the uproar over limited installations is unjustified because 77% of customers have only installed the game once, leaving 23% that have needed to install it multiple times."


And to think, the game's only been out (in US) for a little over a week :roll:

The 1% seems to have disappeared and in now replaced by 23%, and multiple machines is gone as well.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
The 1% seems to have disappeared and in now replaced by 23%, and multiple machines is gone as well.

They gear their speech to sound as indirect as possible. It a common diversionary tactic.

So if Spore actually sold 2 million in the first week, like they predicted, that would mean 460,000 people have installed it on multiple machines. So of that 460,000, how many of them want to install it on more than 3? Only like 50,000, maybe.. i'm guessing. So that's not too big of a deal right? Who cares about those 50,000 people when all your focusing on is numbers, which is all they care about.

It's not.. how do we make all of our customers happy and gain more sales that way. It's.. how many people can we piss of and still make a profit. Of course it's impossible to make everyone happy, but they aren't even trying.

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: wanderer27

Originally posted by: coloumb
Just curious - why isn't the same crowd angry and spewing at the mouth at Valve [STEAM] as well? STEAM is more strict regarding games you purchase - You can't resell the games and you can't access any of their games unless you install and download their client. Isn't this what DRM/Securom is about? Limiting installs to 1 person per game?

I've never used Steam but I have used other download services.

If you can download a complete install that you can save on a backup and use to reinstall without having to login/reregister (say after a format), then I could deal with that, otherwise it's restrictive DRM and I don't care for it.

If Steam fails the above test, then I don't care to ever use it.
Also, if this is the case with Steam, then people using it are most likely okay with (restrictive) DRM so it is not an issue to them - that's why they're not on hear complaining.

Yes, you can burn a copy for backup and reinstall later. For my CS:S, it even keeps certain settings so i don't have to mess with it.

 

[BD2003]

Saw this on polymeme this morning. (digg-like aggregator):

http://torrentfreak.com/spore-...-thanks-to-drm-080913/

Talk about a self-fufilling prophecy. Its impossible to quanitfy exactly how many downloads were caused by people unwilling to put up with the DRM, or even by legitimate users who didnt want to use up a precious install. I'm sure they'll use their liberty of interpretation as justification for MORE DRM, rather than LESS.

It's now dropped to #3 on amazon for PC games - despite the fact that it appears to be selling well, I cant imagine its selling as well as they hoped for a game this high profile.

The confusion over the DRM is potentially a bigger problem than the DRM itself. Perception is far more important than reality - especially for casuals, its very difficult to understand whether they will actually be hindered by the DRM in reality, and EA isnt going out of their way to clarify exactly how it works. We saw with Vista how bad early experiences, no matter how justified, can persist and spiral out of control into a total mess that just makes people want to stay away, period.

Put simply, theyre destroying their brand, a brand which they try so incredibly hard to force on you (unskippable intro logos FTW), and that has implications for every PC game they ever want to release. They should know better how unkind the internet can be when users arent happy - Vista again being the perfect example.

Still, no matter what the reality is behind it being the most pirated game of all, EA would do well to take away a very important message from all this: If you don't play fair with your customers, don't expect them to play fair with you.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: wanderer27

Originally posted by: coloumb
Just curious - why isn't the same crowd angry and spewing at the mouth at Valve [STEAM] as well? STEAM is more strict regarding games you purchase - You can't resell the games and you can't access any of their games unless you install and download their client. Isn't this what DRM/Securom is about? Limiting installs to 1 person per game?

I've never used Steam but I have used other download services.

If you can download a complete install that you can save on a backup and use to reinstall without having to login/reregister (say after a format), then I could deal with that, otherwise it's restrictive DRM and I don't care for it.

If Steam fails the above test, then I don't care to ever use it.
Also, if this is the case with Steam, then people using it are most likely okay with (restrictive) DRM so it is not an issue to them - that's why they're not on hear complaining.

If I'm correct - you must have STEAM up and running in order to be able to play that game [you'd have to login to steam, but not re-register the game unless STEAM performs a one time verification check].

Alas - I think the days of non-DRM games is a thing of the past. I won't be surprised at all if more companies start using the install limit method or change to a completely digital format [ie: STEAM] to try and maximize their return on investment.

Edited:

Ok - so read the EULA of SPORE: http://www.gametreeonline.com/SporeEULA.pdf

Quite simply - You can re-sell the game to ONE other person [ie: you can't make multiple copies and sell them to 10 of your friends]. When you do sell your copy of SPORE - you give up all rights to your copy. It's kinda like selling a house - once you sell the house, you give up all rights to go back into that house.

At least you can still re-sell the game if you want to [unlike those greedy folks over at Valve and their STEAM product].

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Still, no matter what the reality is behind it being the most pirated game of all, EA would do well to take away a very important message from all this: If you don't play fair with your customers, don't expect them to play fair with you.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Well said.