Spore's DRM being protested on Amazon

[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.

[TevashSzat]

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

[Lemur]

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.

[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.

[Xiahou]

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:

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[JR-]

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.