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:

I was going to buy it... here in Aus it is $100... and the exchange rate between here and the US is almost parity so we are paying double. For a single player game that you have to register online.

DRM is onerous, I don't like being made to feel like a pirate, knowing full well that the pirates can bypass this. It's like chucking all the non-criminals in prison, while letting the crims run around free and unhindered outside because that is easier.

One account per copy is where it bites for me and where my purchase will actually end. DRM sucks and it is enough for me to second guess buying those games and has a knock on effect with second guessing purchasing both EA and Sony products. I have plenty of cash, it is the time that I don't have endless amounts of. So I choose my products carefully and there are a lot of competing ones to choose from and only so much time. So given two equal products DRM will be the tipping point against it. Allowing only 1 account for a game I thought of as a family style entertainment... well that's like telling me I have to buy a monopoly board per family member. Get real.

So the cash goes back into the wallet and might come out for Unleashed or De Blob or an expansion pack. Or I'll just wait till it is in the bargin bin... hopefully there will be a server to validate it then.

here is my amazon review: http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2NOC...cm_cr_rdp_perm




I bought it, enjoyed it, then panned it. Chasing casual gamers as a finacial strategy is going to be a risky business in the world on customer reviews if you choose to use intrusive DRM.

It appears the stakes have been raised.

Quote:

---

'Spore' Hijacks Computers, Class Claims


SAN JOSE (CN) - Electronic Arts, a leading maker of computer games, defrauds consumers through its "Spore" game, which "completely wipes their hard drive" and replaces it with an undisclosed program that prevents the computer from operating under some circumstances and disrupts hardware operations, a class action claims in Federal Court.
The class claims that "Spore," a virtual reality simulation game, contains "a second, undisclosed program" called SecuROM, a "form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) for computer games."
Consumers are not warned about the program, which is installed without notice and cannot be uninstalled, even if the uninstall Spore, the complaint states. The secret SecuROM program is "secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel), and surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation on the computer, preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and/or disrupting hardware operations," the complaint states.
Plaintiffs demand disgorgement of unjust profits and damages for trespass, interference, unfair competition and consumer law violations.
They are represented by Alan Himmelfarb with KamberEdelson of Vernon, Calif., and New York.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

It appears the stakes have been raised.

---

I think the wording is a little sketchy in the news snippet, but if they can prove that loading software like SecuRom without the PC owner's knowledge or consent is illegal- great. :2thumbsup:

If they want to put stuff like that on their games- fine, that's their right. But they really should be more upfront about what's being installed and what it does.

That happens when you are greedy, EA. And when you use "Heythis****destroysmycomputerandcd/dvdROM", you computer is down. EA should pay with SecuROM the damages to the users who legally bought a game and are being treated as pirates. A good siege of law actions against EA will calm the greedyness of EA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think the wording is a little sketchy in the news snippet, but if they can prove that loading software like SecuRom without the PC owner's knowledge or consent is illegal- great. :2thumbsup:

---

I'm also a bit worried about what could happen if this ends up going the other way. I could potentially see them settling instead of taking it down that road, that's an equally dangerous game for them trying to play it through.

Quote:

---

If they want to put stuff like that on their games- fine, that's their right. But they really should be more upfront about what's being installed and what it does.

---

I'd agree to a point. They have the right to demand compensation for their products, and a REASONABLE right to protect them. Installing software that subverts my system or my control over my system in any shape or form, be it optical drivers, kernel hooks, whatever, OR does any kind of "call home" nonsense is all total BS in my view and SHOULD be illegal. Something like an embedded routine in an executable checking for physical characteristics on a disc and that doesn't install any wacky driver is another and I have no problem with whatsoever.

It's all a farce anyway, no matter how draconian or complex the DRM system is, it'll get cracked. Bioshock and Spore both shipped with the more heavy-handed versions of Securom, and they were cracked either before or almost immediately after release.

Just found a copy of the Spore EULA in Internet: http://www.gametreeonline.com/SporeEULA.pdf

It doesn't say that CrapROM its included...but here is the funny bit of the thing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spore EULA

Injunctive Relief. You agree that a breach of this License may
cause irreparable injury to EA for which monetary damages would not
be an adequate remedy and EA shall be entitled to seek equitable

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spore EULA

relief in addition to any remedies it may have hereunder or at law.

---

To my understanding, which may be wrong, it says that if you breach in any way the EULA, you are harming EA Games. The funny thing is that they WILL harm you, but they WON'T make something for you!

Also, there is NO MENTION of '3 times installation allowed'. They are breaking their own EULA.

Quote:

---

EA and its affiliates may also collect, use, store, transmit and
publicly display statistical data regarding game play (including scores,
rankings and achievements), or identify content that is created and
shared by you with other players. Data that personally identifies you is
collected, used, stored and transmitted in accordance with EA’s Privacy
Policy located online at privacy.ea.com.

---

This is spying also. They collect information, and you don't really know what they will do with your info.

Penny Arcadeis currently running a series on DRM. The link at the bottom of their latest article is interesting... number 1 selling PC game of the year has no copy protection.

I won't link here to PA... because they can be a little more foul of mouth then is strictly permitted here. But I will link to the Stardock article at the bottom of the DRM discussion (just want the orginal pointers to get cred).