Spore's DRM being protested on Amazon

Just read this on Gamespy, although I remember seeing a mention of it earlier in the day as well. For those who are interested, here's a direct link to Amazon's Spore review page.


All I can say is: Good. I sincerely hope EA and other PC game publishers sit up and take notice of what's happening. Clearly the carrot hasn't been working thus far -- e.g., getting publishers to realize on their own that there's actually more profit in *not* having draconian protection schemes -- so perhaps it's time to try the stick.

That's a good step, but what really needs to happen is a class action lawsuit against EA and/or SecuROM regarding the 'install limits'.

The masses are rising :yes: :beam: :2thumbsup:

I think Bakunin couldn't have guessed that the first large-scale revolution in the 21th century would occur because of some crappy videogame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

the first large-scale revolution in the 21th century would occur because of some crappy videogame.

---

Don't say that, remember Marie Antoinette, who just said that "let them eat cake insted." and found herself in for a chop soon after. :laugh4:
Someone has got to get chopped now, I just hope this thing gets large enough to make them listen; I mean copy protection opposition seems to be at its peak right now; with Stardock's Bill of Rights for Gamers and all........

Bless 'em. Viva la revolution.

May the gaming gods(I heard Thor is awesome at CS:S) bless everyone of them.
Now if only I could be productive and create an account at Amazon and join them.:shame:

Good

I'm one of those thousands of people who were drooling in anticipation of this game. However, I'm not paying $50 for a rental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

Don't say that, remember Marie Antoinette, who just said that "let them eat cake insted." and found herself in for a chop soon after. :laugh4:
Someone has got to get chopped now, I just hope this thing gets large enough to make them listen; I mean copy protection opposition seems to be at its peak right now; with Stardock's Bill of Rights for Gamers and all........

---

.
Poor Marie-Antoinette having never uttered those words being a side issue, let's all hail

VIVE LA REVOLUTION! VIVE STARDOCK! :viking:
.

What really needs to happen is people need to VOTE WITH THEIR DOLLARS/EUROS/POUNDS/etc. Do NOT buy the game if it comes with this kind of crap! Research before you buy. Etc etc etc.

Vive Stardock! indeed!

I wish I knew about the DRM before I bought it :cry:

Quote:

---

I wish I knew about the DRM before I bought it

---

So do I.

Thirded. Already done two installs. Oh well, at least one is perma-backed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

What really needs to happen is people need to VOTE WITH THEIR DOLLARS/EUROS/POUNDS/etc.

---

Well the 1 star reviews will no doubt stop some people from buying it.

Agreed, this sort of thing must surely be actually starting to make a dent in their sales. I know for a fact if I'm going on Amazon to buy a game, and see it has 700 1-star reviews all saying "DO NOT BUY THIS GAME" it would put me off.

Vive la revolution!

Edit: It's made the BBC website.

Less watered down games!!! more steaks!!!!

BURN THE DRM OPPRESSERS!!! IMPALE THE SECRUROM ON THE SPIKES!!!

Don't forget that SecuRom is a Sony product, and I assume that for every purchase of Spore, Sony gets a license fee/royalty of some kind. For me, that's reason enough to protest/boycott, apart from the distinct possibility that Sony's programmers are morons that will leave your system open to teh 0wnage.

Wonder how those holiday sales are going to go when you got a 1 star rated game on Amazon. If I knew almost nothing about games and went online sometime in Dec to buy a kid a game and saw Spore, I would say "oh this looks cute.....oh...one star...well that can't be good, maybe I should look for something else".

And the saga continues.....
EA Limiting Spore Owners to One Account Per Copy

Okay, now that's just flat-out inane. Why on earth would EA place such an absurd restriction on the game? That makes even less sense than including SecuROM. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

brings you about the same amount of excitement as dressing up a plastic doll.

---

Ouch man ouch. This just had me cracking up. Oh well... looks like EA won't be getting anymore of my mulah. I haven't bought a game from them in a while anyhoo.

Not to mention that it seems they are going to do it to their entire line of game :wall:

oh well...

VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

Maybe some aliens have taken over the bodies of the EA people, you know like they had in Freelancer, the Nomads took over many high positioned people to put in action their evil plan :laugh4: ...........maybe these people have some plan to fire up gamers and then do something......hard to believe they still don't see the writing on the wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mailman653

And the saga continues.....
EA Limiting Spore Owners to One Account Per Copy

---

I can understand the logic behind doing that, but for me that's the last nail in the coffin for this "game". Having multiple accounts would have been the only way for my brother and I to track individual creations, etc. But since that's not the case, I'll not bother at all, there's no point buying two DRM infested rental copies. Glad that I found that out sooner, rather than later.

The anti-DRM rage is reaching the mainstream media. Forbes has a great piece:

How do you measure the failure of the copy protections that software companies place on their media products? In the case of Electronic Arts' highly-anticipated game "Spore," just count the pirates.

As of Thursday afternoon, "Spore" had been illegally downloaded on file-sharing networks using BitTorrent peer-to-peer transfer 171,402 times since Sept. 1, according to Big Champagne, a peer-to-peer research firm. That's hardly a record: a popular game often hits those kinds of six-figure piracy numbers, says Big Champagne Chief Executive Eric Garland. But not usually so quickly [...]

Electronic Arts calls those criticisms unfair. "EA has not changed our basic DRM copy protection system," says corporate communications manager Mariam Sughayer. "We simply changed the copy protection method from using the physical media, which requires authentication every time you play the game by requiring a disc in the drive, to one which uses a one-time online authentication."

Electronic Arts compares its DRM solution to systems in place on services like iTunes that similarly limits the number of computers that can play a particular song. Sughayer also points out that less than 25% of EA users attempt to install the company's games on more than one computer, and less than 1% attempt to install it on more than three.

Liars. EA, that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The anti-DRM rage is reaching the mainstream media....

---

The DRM will prevent piracy, they said.

Another dose of Spore news:
Amazon Pulls Negative Reviews Of 'Spore,' Then Reinstates Them

All those compalints don't seem to be working very well since the ad states the game is ranked #5 in sales.

I was browsing the Spore forum threads this morning, just to see how angry the user base was and what EA is or isn't doing to address the problem. Anyway, I ran across a brilliant post that deserves reprinting. After a user compared the DRM to a lock on a house, a user responded:

Since you obviously like the "locking your house" analogy let's take it further.

Consider that when you buy your house you are forced by someone to use a super high tech lock to that house. It has eye scanners and finger print scanners and requires a key to use also. You've bought this house like say 100 000 others. out of those 100 000 there's a certain percentage that will not be able to enter their house because of faulty locks. Will that be you?

The lock is also integrated into the house so that should it ever have a hiccup you will be ejected from the house.

Should you in the future ever have to move to another house you are obligated to take the lock with you, but you will not be allowed to move more than 3 times. If you do the lock will stop working and you will be locked out of your house. Should the house ever burn down the lock will miraculously survive and this will count as if you moved once.

Should you have to move more than 3 times you will have to contact the company that built your house to activate more moves. This is an extensive process that can take weeks, and during that time you are locked out of your house.

Meanwhile, there are some people who move into houses and have locksmiths successfully remove the locks so that they will not be affected by any of the above procedures. It's quite easy even for you to do the same and it doesn't cost anything.

The only problem with the above description really is that the house is both representing your computer and the game itself.

Is this the way you would want your house to work? Then DRM is perfect for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I was browsing the Spore forum threads this morning, just to see how angry the user base was and what EA is or isn't doing to address the problem. Anyway, I ran across a brilliant post that deserves reprinting. After a user compared the DRM to a lock on a house, a user responded:

Since you obviously like the "locking your house" analogy let's take it further.

Consider that when you buy your house you are forced by someone to use a super high tech lock to that house. It has eye scanners and finger print scanners and requires a key to use also. You've bought this house like say 100 000 others. out of those 100 000 there's a certain percentage that will not be able to enter their house because of faulty locks. Will that be you?

The lock is also integrated into the house so that should it ever have a hiccup you will be ejected from the house.

Should you in the future ever have to move to another house you are obligated to take the lock with you, but you will not be allowed to move more than 3 times. If you do the lock will stop working and you will be locked out of your house. Should the house ever burn down the lock will miraculously survive and this will count as if you moved once.

Should you have to move more than 3 times you will have to contact the company that built your house to activate more moves. This is an extensive process that can take weeks, and during that time you are locked out of your house.

Meanwhile, there are some people who move into houses and have locksmiths successfully remove the locks so that they will not be affected by any of the above procedures. It's quite easy even for you to do the same and it doesn't cost anything.

The only problem with the above description really is that the house is both representing your computer and the game itself.

Is this the way you would want your house to work? Then DRM is perfect for you.

---

Wow....just an awesome analogy there

Good article over at Ars Technica — to bring a little empiricism to the table, they deliberately installed the game on four machines to see how bad it would be getting a new authentication key.

While the issue of the install limit is a touchy one, it doesn't look like a normal install will do much to use up your limit, and in fact we surpassed the install limit by a few times before running into an issue. Even after being told that we were "renting" the game, EA was happy to give us a new key to run the game. In this case, customer service wins, and we left wondering if the DRM controversy might be more philosophical in nature than rooted in any real-world inconveniences.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ania/DRM-1.jpg

I'm kind of surprised Ars didn't run the experiment under real-life conditions. Install the game on machine A. Install the game on machine B. Update graphics card on machine A. Add memory to machine B. Change hard drive on machine A and install. Downgrade B from XP to Vista and install. Upgrade A from Vista to XP and install.

These are the types of things that gamers do over the lifecycle of their PCs.


The fact that your ability to play the game is slaved to the activation server, which may or may not be running 5 years down the line when you dust off the disk, is the main "philosophical" controversy in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I'm kind of surprised Ars didn't run the experiment under real-life conditions. Install the game on machine A. Install the game on machine B. Update graphics card on machine A. Add memory to machine B. Change hard drive on machine A and install. Downgrade B from XP to Vista and install. Upgrade A from Vista to XP and install.

These are the types of things that gamers do over the lifecycle of their PCs.


The fact that your ability to play the game is slaved to the activation server, which may or may not be running 5 years down the line when you dust off the disk, is the main "philosophical" controversy in my mind.

---

Yeah, I skimmed the article and the author came off as a bit dense. Everyone who is at all "techie" should know that reinstalling the game on the same machine without any other changes does not use up an installation allotment. I thought the best line was the one that they made so little of:

Quote:

---

he quickly determined that there was a network issue on their side; Spore's authentication servers were down.

---

Having a single-player game installed and not being able to play it due to remote server problems is completely outrageous imo. That was what soured me on the online activation approach to DRM way back at HL2's release. :no: