Spore / DRM / EA / PC Game Industry

[novasatori]

Does anyone thing any changes will come of this? Or do you think EA will say, shit our game is the #1 pirated game of all time, step up the DRM?

I gotta admit I'm getting quite disappointed that games seem to be going towards a perpetual licensing type thing where we will basically be renting games for the rest of our lives, similar to MMOs. Want to play Spore 2? 5.99$/month per account and $59.99 for the initial game.

Ultimately I think it only hurts PC sales. I don't know about you guys, but when I was heavy into MMOs, I wasn't buying other games, cause I didn't have time or feel the desire to shell out more than the 30$ I was spending on subs.

I also don't like how the accounts are tied to the keys, so if you wanted to loan your game out to a friend or resell it later, you have to relinquish your account.

Stupid, I think, but I'm sure EA thinks its extremely good... to pad their wallets.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: novasatori
Does anyone thing any changes will come of this? Or do you think EA will say, shit our game is the #1 pirated game of all time, step up the DRM?

Well, they will either step up their DRM, which will result in more lost sales, both from people just pirating it or simply not buying it. Or they will finally get it through their thick skulls that people don't want DRM. This is EA though, so I don't think that second option is too likely. They'll have to go through a few tough lessons before they learn this.

Shame about Spore though, so many people were excited about the game, so many people let down.

Will Wright should spin off his own studio and go with a different publisher.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: novasatori
Does anyone thing any changes will come of this? Or do you think EA will say, shit our game is the #1 pirated game of all time, step up the DRM?

Well, they will either step up their DRM, which will result in more lost sales, both from people just pirating it or simply not buying it. Or they will finally get it through their thick skulls that people don't want DRM. This is EA though, so I don't think that second option is too likely. They'll have to go through a few tough lessons before they learn this.

Shame about Spore though, so many people were excited about the game, so many people let down.

Will Wright should spin off his own studio and go with a different publisher.

I cant imagine this is the outcome they expected...I dont see how it could get much worse. I havent really seen any official EA response to the backlash, so I'm thinking theyre trying to figure out just wtf to do right now. They HAVE to do something to stem the tide of negative press - when ZDNet is running articles like "Will Spore and it's DRM kill PC gaming?", you know something is very wrong.

http://www.gameculture.com/node/759

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually Spore was #4 on Amazon yesterday, today it's down to #7 (so far).

Right now it seems to me that EA is so arrogant I dont think they care one or another what people think of of them. They're going to do what they want to do and that's it.

I really hate to think Will Wright is involved in any of these decisions, if he is, then I've really had the wool pulled over my eyes . . . .

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: novasatori
Does anyone thing any changes will come of this? Or do you think EA will say, shit our game is the #1 pirated game of all time, step up the DRM?

I gotta admit I'm getting quite disappointed that games seem to be going towards a perpetual licensing type thing where we will basically be renting games for the rest of our lives, similar to MMOs. Want to play Spore 2? 5.99$/month per account and $59.99 for the initial game.

Ultimately I think it only hurts PC sales. I don't know about you guys, but when I was heavy into MMOs, I wasn't buying other games, cause I didn't have time or feel the desire to shell out more than the 30$ I was spending on subs.

I also don't like how the accounts are tied to the keys, so if you wanted to loan your game out to a friend or resell it later, you have to relinquish your account.

Stupid, I think, but I'm sure EA thinks its extremely good... to pad their wallets.

I think there's an outside chance that they may drop the install limit, but that's about it.

For me that's not enough, but I've pretty much gotten to the point where I don't care if Spore was even developed - too many mixed reviews and just plain too much BS involved with this title.
This thing's going to have a severe case of expansionitis, and I really don't know that I care to give my support to EA for this.


I saw the dangers of MMO's before I ever signed up one - they're a money & a time sink.
Ultimately, I think EA is trying to create their own version with what they're doing now.


Just to add to the troubles and frustrations, now it seems that EA has moved/redesigned the official Spore forums so that you have to be a registered user to even see them.
I guess they're afraid for people to see all the problems going on.

 

[warcrow]

What's up guys. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I worked with Ars on some DRM investigation (I'm using that term lightly) and installed Spore a rediculous amount of times on several machines, talked with EA tech support, and reported my findings.

You might be surprised what we found out.

Putting EA's DRM to the Test

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: warcrow
What's up guys. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I worked with Ars on some DRM investigation (I'm using that term lightly) and installed Spore a rediculous amount of times on several machines, talked with EA tech support, and reported my findings.

You might be surprised what we found out.

Putting EA's DRM to the Test

Hey, yeah I saw that.

My first question is how long did you wait between re-installs?
I'm curious to see if there is a time delay for their system to recognize the install limit has been exceeded.

My next question, is did you try it on the same machine after reformatting the HD?
I suspect you might have different results doing it this way.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: warcrow
What's up guys. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I worked with Ars on some DRM investigation (I'm using that term lightly) and installed Spore a rediculous amount of times on several machines, talked with EA tech support, and reported my findings.

You might be surprised what we found out.

Putting EA's DRM to the Test

The link you posted didn't work for me but I found the article on ars. http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...surprising-result.html

It's definitely an interesting article. My problem with the DRM isn't the hassles of using it (or lack thereof), but what EA is trying to accomplish by using it. (make it harder to sell the game or buy a used copy) The lack of understanding of what the DRM is actually in place for is what has probably led to the uproar about it. It's still a good thing IMO. It would be better if people actually understood EA's goal, but it's better than nothing.

It's clear to me that they are trying to suck every penny they can from those willing to buy their game. Here's some reasons behind why I think that:

#1: You can only have one player account per license. So that means if you and your kid wants to play separate creatures, then you have to buy another copy.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080912/0031172248.shtml

#2: While the ars technica article does show that the three install limit isn't such an issue in practice, IMO it doesn't mean people shouldn't worry. I worry because if I buy the game, can I sell it? If I can't I was renting the game but still had to pay $50 for it. I could get a new key like the ars guys did, but how many people are going to figure out how to do that? So, it's clear EA's goal is to severely disable the used market for the game. That may not seem like a big deal now, but if there is no used market it means they (in theory) can charge $50 for as long as they want. What if every publisher when with this approach? In a few years most game prices will be controlled buy publishers, as there would be little to no used market, and we a consumers would have little to no impact on prices any longer. That's a big problem for the future of PC gaming IMO.

#3: There are many who think excess DRM leads to more pirating. I'm among them.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2617

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: warcrow
What's up guys. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I worked with Ars on some DRM investigation (I'm using that term lightly) and installed Spore a rediculous amount of times on several machines, talked with EA tech support, and reported my findings.

You might be surprised what we found out.

Putting EA's DRM to the Test

The link you posted didn't work for me but I found the article on ars. http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...surprising-result.html

It's definitely an interesting article. My problem with the DRM isn't the hassles of using it (or lack thereof), but what EA is trying to accomplish by using it. (make it harder to sell the game or buy a used copy) The lack of understanding of what the DRM is actually in place for is what has probably led to the uproar about it. It's still a good thing IMO. It would be better if people actually understood EA's goal, but it's better than nothing.

It's clear to me that they are trying to suck every penny they can from those willing to buy their game. Here's some reasons behind why I think that:

#1: You can only have one player account per license. So that means if you and your kid wants to play separate creatures, then you have to buy another copy.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080912/0031172248.shtml

#2: While the ars technica article does show that the three install limit isn't such an issue in practice, IMO it doesn't mean people shouldn't worry. I worry because if I buy the game, can I sell it? If I can't I was renting the game but still had to pay $50 for it. I could get a new key like the ars guys did, but how many people are going to figure out how to do that? So, it's clear EA's goal is to severely disable the used market for the game. That may not seem like a big deal now, but if there is no used market it means they (in theory) can charge $50 for as long as they want. What if every publisher when with this approach? In a few years most game prices will be controlled buy publishers, as there would be little to no used market, and we a consumers would have little to no impact on prices any longer. That's a big problem for the future of PC gaming IMO.

#3: There are many who think excess DRM leads to more pirating. I'm among them.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2617

you havn't actually played the game have you?

For #1, yeah you can only have 1 account, but you can have I think it is 6 different games going on. My wife and I both have our own planet. Not that difficult.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
you havn't actually played the game have you?

For #1, yeah you can only have 1 account, but you can have I think it is 6 different games going on. My wife and I both have our own planet. Not that difficult.

Of course I haven't played the game.. 8-|

That's great if you have multiple machines, but what if you only have one?

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: mindcycle


It's clear to me that they are trying to suck every penny they can from those willing to buy their game. Here's some reasons behind why I think that:

#1: You can only have one player account per license. So that means if you and your kid wants to play separate creatures, then you have to buy another copy.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080912/0031172248.shtml

Do you think this is absurd, wrong, and unjustified that a company would want to ensure that each person has their own unique copy? Or just stating the facts?

Most of the complaints I read regarding SPORE's DRM/Install limit seem to be from people who want to be able to install the game on multiple computers to allow different people to play the same copy [aye matey!] while the rest of the complaints are from the install/reactivation issue [you will more than likely be dealing with an outsourced company in India who probably has no clue on the 3 install limit and will happily re-activate it for you within a few minutes.]

Count your lucky stars that you CAN install spore on different machines. Imagine if it was only being sold on STEAM - you'd be limited to 1 copy per account.

 

[citsacras]

Originally posted by: Xavier434When I buy my copy of game, I want to feel like I am buying a copy. I don't mind playing by the rules when it comes to legal issues of that copy, but don't make me feel like I am just renting it from you so that you feel better as you sit around a table with the other execs observing your profit margins and pretending that they had something to do with anti-piracy through DRM. Don't make me feel like I am nothing more than a potential criminal who is guilty until proven innocent. I refuse to pay for something that makes me feel that way and inconveniences me so much. There are plenty of other great games to buy which don't do that.

QFT!

Besides Spore, I refused to purchase Bioshock and Mass Effect due to Draconian DRM measures. Actually, I did purchase Bioshock, but fortunately I read about the DRM before opening it and was able to get a refund.

Why do these companies want to punish legitimate customers?

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: coloumb

Originally posted by: mindcycle


It's clear to me that they are trying to suck every penny they can from those willing to buy their game. Here's some reasons behind why I think that:

#1: You can only have one player account per license. So that means if you and your kid wants to play separate creatures, then you have to buy another copy.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080912/0031172248.shtml

Do you think this is absurd, wrong, and unjustified that a company would want to ensure that each person has their own unique copy? Or just stating the facts?

Most of the complaints I read regarding SPORE's DRM/Install limit seem to be from people who want to be able to install the game on multiple computers to allow different people to play the same copy [aye matey!] while the rest of the complaints are from the install/reactivation issue [you will more than likely be dealing with an outsourced company in India who probably has no clue on the 3 install limit and will happily re-activate it for you within a few minutes.]

Count your lucky stars that you CAN install spore on different machines. Imagine if it was only being sold on STEAM - you'd be limited to 1 copy per account.

yeah but with steam I can download and install as many times as I want. For someone who upgrades small parts at a time for him computer I worry that if I upgrade my CPU and reformat, that will use up a copy. I don't want to have to call India so I can install my legally bought game.

With Steam I can use this game as many times as I want on as many machines(as long as I have my steam account loaded). I have a laptop and desktop that both have all of my steam games installed. I want to put Spore on there but don't want to use 66% of my installs just for a laptop.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: coloumb

Originally posted by: mindcycle


It's clear to me that they are trying to suck every penny they can from those willing to buy their game. Here's some reasons behind why I think that:

#1: You can only have one player account per license. So that means if you and your kid wants to play separate creatures, then you have to buy another copy.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080912/0031172248.shtml

Do you think this is absurd, wrong, and unjustified that a company would want to ensure that each person has their own unique copy? Or just stating the facts?

Most of the complaints I read regarding SPORE's DRM/Install limit seem to be from people who want to be able to install the game on multiple computers to allow different people to play the same copy [aye matey!] while the rest of the complaints are from the install/reactivation issue [you will more than likely be dealing with an outsourced company in India who probably has no clue on the 3 install limit and will happily re-activate it for you within a few minutes.]

Count your lucky stars that you CAN install spore on different machines. Imagine if it was only being sold on STEAM - you'd be limited to 1 copy per account.

Oh yeah, the people who bought spore are so lucky to have EA cater for their need for further installs etc, EA has shown itsself time and again it can be trusted to support its products aftermarket and that it cares for its customers....

Get a clue. EA sucks.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: citsacras

Originally posted by: Xavier434When I buy my copy of game, I want to feel like I am buying a copy. I don't mind playing by the rules when it comes to legal issues of that copy, but don't make me feel like I am just renting it from you so that you feel better as you sit around a table with the other execs observing your profit margins and pretending that they had something to do with anti-piracy through DRM. Don't make me feel like I am nothing more than a potential criminal who is guilty until proven innocent. I refuse to pay for something that makes me feel that way and inconveniences me so much. There are plenty of other great games to buy which don't do that.

QFT!

Besides Spore, I refused to purchase Bioshock and Mass Effect due to Draconian DRM measures. Actually, I did purchase Bioshock, but fortunately I read about the DRM before opening it and was able to get a refund.

Why do these companies want to punish legitimate customers?

i played them on my Xbox 360 because of the DRM crap

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: coloumb

Originally posted by: mindcycle


It's clear to me that they are trying to suck every penny they can from those willing to buy their game. Here's some reasons behind why I think that:

#1: You can only have one player account per license. So that means if you and your kid wants to play separate creatures, then you have to buy another copy.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080912/0031172248.shtml

Do you think this is absurd, wrong, and unjustified that a company would want to ensure that each person has their own unique copy? Or just stating the facts?

Most of the complaints I read regarding SPORE's DRM/Install limit seem to be from people who want to be able to install the game on multiple computers to allow different people to play the same copy [aye matey!] while the rest of the complaints are from the install/reactivation issue [you will more than likely be dealing with an outsourced company in India who probably has no clue on the 3 install limit and will happily re-activate it for you within a few minutes.]

Count your lucky stars that you CAN install spore on different machines. Imagine if it was only being sold on STEAM - you'd be limited to 1 copy per account.

Really? Because I haven't seen anything like that on this forum. Or on other forums.

What I've seen are people who want to be able to install the game on the same system after hardware upgrades. Each upgrade = new install. Three hardware upgrades and you're already done.

 

[mindcycle]

Found an article some of you might find interesting. He goes over a lot of the same points that have been brought up a hundred times, but his solution to the problem is pretty interesting.

The answer to this particular game is AMAZINGLY easy. One of the biggest draws to Spore is the online content: The ability to see/share your creations with the rest of the world and vice versa. As-is, the pirated version of the game does not have the ability to connect online. Seeing as one the major draws IS the online content, what would happen had you simply left out the DRM, and simply executed an online verification of serial number registration to grant online content:

http://www.politicalmachine.co...ticle/323976/Spore_DRM

Since EA's #1 goal isn't stopping piracy, as they would have you believe, I can't really see them doing anything like this. They'd rather just milk their current customers for all their worth. In theory it would work though, and actually increase sales I would imagine.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Found an article some of you might find interesting. He goes over a lot of the same points that have been brought up a hundred times, but his solution to the problem is pretty interesting.

The answer to this particular game is AMAZINGLY easy. One of the biggest draws to Spore is the online content: The ability to see/share your creations with the rest of the world and vice versa. As-is, the pirated version of the game does not have the ability to connect online. Seeing as one the major draws IS the online content, what would happen had you simply left out the DRM, and simply executed an online verification of serial number registration to grant online content:

http://www.politicalmachine.co...ticle/323976/Spore_DRM

Since EA's #1 goal isn't stopping piracy, as they would have you believe, I can't really see them doing anything like this. They'd rather just milk their current customers for all their worth. In theory it would work though, and actually increase sales I would imagine.

In essence, isn't this what Stardock's model boils done to?

Just makes too much sense for EA to do something like this.

 

[exdeath]

It isn't consoles that killed PC gaming. It's DRM. The desire of the game industry to copy the cell phone industry's "pay per click" nickel and dime methods, remaking the same game over and over on different platforms for the same price, etc.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: exdeath
It isn't consoles that killed PC gaming. It's DRM. The desire of the game industry to copy the cell phone industry's "pay per click" nickel and dime methods, remaking the same game over and over on different platforms for the same price, etc.

That's EA's Sports Franchise (Madden especially) to a tee.

All the Doom variation shooters aren't too far behind that.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
In essence, isn't this what Stardock's model boils done to?

Just makes too much sense for EA to do something like this.

Yes it is pretty much what Stardock is doing. You're right though, EA will never be able comprehend that concept.. Actually treating your paying customers right!? How is that going to make us millions of dollars? lol

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: citsacras

Originally posted by: Xavier434When I buy my copy of game, I want to feel like I am buying a copy. I don't mind playing by the rules when it comes to legal issues of that copy, but don't make me feel like I am just renting it from you so that you feel better as you sit around a table with the other execs observing your profit margins and pretending that they had something to do with anti-piracy through DRM. Don't make me feel like I am nothing more than a potential criminal who is guilty until proven innocent. I refuse to pay for something that makes me feel that way and inconveniences me so much. There are plenty of other great games to buy which don't do that.

QFT!

Besides Spore, I refused to purchase Bioshock and Mass Effect due to Draconian DRM measures. Actually, I did purchase Bioshock, but fortunately I read about the DRM before opening it and was able to get a refund.

Why do these companies want to punish legitimate customers?

i played them on my Xbox 360 because of the DRM crap

Which is, ironically, exactly what they want you to do. They have nearly total control of the console title when compared to the PC titles.

The best thing you can do is to simply not buy their crap.

 

[wanderer27]

So, it looks like EA is going to release a patch "sometime" to remove the install limit.

EA Maxis' PC everything-sim Spore will soon get an update loosening one of its copy protection limits and allowing customers to de-activate existing installations of the game.


The game's three-installation limit has sparked full-blown Internet Rage for users' inability to de-activate installations in a method like Apple's iTunes. "Right now, with our solution, you can't. But there is a patch coming for that," EA representative Mariam Sughayer told MTV Multiplayer. No timeframe other than "near future" was given for the update.

They're still only going to allow one user account per game though.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54789

SecuROM stays also, as if that's a surprise.

They mention that so far "only" .4% of users have exceeded the three install limit.
Hmmm, considering the game hasn't been out two weeks yet that seems mighty high to me. I can't imagine where they get off thinking only 1% will ever need more than three activations - at the rate they're going it's seems inevitable to me.


Here's an interesting quote from a similar article:

The problem is, DRM doesn't really work. As former Universal Pictures senior vice president Jerry Pierce once said, "DRM solutions enable business models, they don't stop piracy." And when DRM backfires, it can backfire spectacularly.

 

[lupi]

I saw that announcement on g4 yesterday; so shocking that the same thing that happened with bioshock is happening here. At least maybe they'll learn something: yeah, who are we kidding.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
They're still only going to allow one user account per game though.

Theyve backtracked on that too.

http://kotaku.com/5052045/spor...-account-registrations

While I dont want to give EA too much credit for backtracking on something they should have NEVER done in the first place, at least theyre smart enough to listen to the masses, know when theyve fucked up, and to do something about it.

The install limit only bothered me because there was a chance that system crashes and upgrades would give me issues, now that I'll be able to revoke installs thats much less of an issue.

The only other problem was the inability to share the game with my GF - theres no way in hell I'd have bought two of them.

And finally I wont have to keep the stupid disc in the drive just to prove I'm not a criminal.

I'm not concerned at all about the activation servers going down - I'm sure by the time that happens, the game will long be a memory, and the actual game servers will be down too - at that point if I really still want to play it I hardly think itll be a problem to crack it for SP use.

Once these patches are out, I'm buying the game. Although I'm sure we'd all rather not deal with DRM in the first place, it seems that as long as theres a properly working revoke tool, its hardly restrictive.