Slashdot Mirror


EA Loosens Spore, Mass Effect DRM

An anonymous reader writes "In response to recent criticism, EA has decided to eliminate the periodic validation of Mass Effect and Spore. 'Specifically, EA's plan to dial in to game owner's computers every ten days to check whether they were running a legitimate version of their software has been scrapped, ShackNews reports. EA had planned to use the validation method for upcoming titles Mass Effect and Spore. EA now says that validation will now only occur when a user attempts to download new content for either game. Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces, who pointed out that they could not rely on having an internet connection every ten days.'"

249 comments

  1. Sudden outbreak... by thealsir · · Score: 5, Funny

    of common sense?

    --
    Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    1. Re:Sudden outbreak... by DittoBox · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    2. Re:Sudden outbreak... by Barny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, are we sure this is:

      a. EA
      b. Worded correctly

      Just doesn't sound like EA....

      I'm scared ;(

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Sudden outbreak... by esp_ex · · Score: 0

      of common sense? Seems to me it isn't an outbreak common sense if EA had to be pushed to change its policies based on consumer demands.
    4. Re:Sudden outbreak... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      They said that one of the primary objections were from soldiers. I think looking unpatriotic/unAmerican/unSupportTheTroops would be very bad for business.

    5. Re:Sudden outbreak... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      More like, trial balloon didn't blow over so well this time around.

      It'll be back. Don't you worry. Just not this year.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Sudden outbreak... by Spacejock · · Score: 1

      Yes, and good on them for listening. Of course, over time publishers will try and slip in more and more net-based checks, but it's great to see a huge amount of bad publicity can have an effect on their decisions.

    7. Re:Sudden outbreak... by rob1980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - Announce heavy-handed DRM
      - "Listen" to backlash from fans
      - Announce less heavy-handed DRM
      - Pat yourself on the back when the fans lavish praise on you, knowing you still got your foot in the door anyway

      Sudden outbreak of common sense, my foot!

    8. Re:Sudden outbreak... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It is an outbreak because they reacted to the pushing, usually that ends with the company just ignoring everyone and going ahead anyway.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:Sudden outbreak... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I know!

      I swear, I read the headline as "EA looses Spore..."

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:Sudden outbreak... by ppanon · · Score: 4, Funny

      They said that one of the primary objections were from soldiers. I think looking unpatriotic/unAmerican/unSupportTheTroops would be very bad for business.
      Maybe another factor was the realization that a large number of soldiers are coming home from Iraq with PTSD and good weapons handling skills and that it could be bad for more than business.
      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    11. Re:Sudden outbreak... by chrisb33 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was thinking the same thing - could they really have been serious about the 10-day DRM? It wasn't as if people's reactions were unpredictable, so I find it hard to believe that they honestly thought people wouldn't complain. As you pointed out, this seems more like a conscious "Door-in-the-face" technique than a legitimate retraction.

    12. Re:Sudden outbreak... by Skylinux · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Nice, if I had a mod points I would give one to you. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/5/9/ is very funny ... still laughing

      The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game How is this better then constant validation? So if I install it on my Desktop, Laptop and maybe at work ... I would only play it on one computer at a time.
      Now if one of the machines crashes, I am thinking about my Gaming (win XP) Desktop here, it has become unstable and needs a reload soon .... I would have to beg to get one more install.... keep your game!
      --
      Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    13. Re:Sudden outbreak... by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Funny

      (Apologies in advance to those this may offend.)

      A new psychological condition is predicted to appear among service men and women serving in combat in Iraq: PEASD (Post-Electronic-Arts-Stress-Disorder).

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    14. Re:Sudden outbreak... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not if they want to sell copies of their games. The fact that so many are making jokes about it like Penny Arcade shows that it is building a nice groundswell of negative publicity. And with the recession tightening everyones belts, pretty much the LAST thing you want is for your new product to be looked at as a ripoff that is so bad it's a joke.


      That said, the three install BS is the dealbreaker for me. Hell, I reinstall Windows from a prisitne disc image at least once a year on my gaming rig if not more. Have they never heard of Windows rot? And after watching folks get burned first with MLB.com DRM and then MSN Musicstore DRM I'm leary of any kind of copy protection that phones home, but to find out I would only get three installs of a game I PAID FOR? Without even bothering to see whether I was installing to the same machine or not? Sorry,but you can keep your broken games EA. luckily they don't own every game house on the planet,at least not yet. Those titles might look nice and be fun,but I could not support any company who was royally screwing their customers with DRM that draconian. But that is my 02c,YMMV.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re:Sudden outbreak... by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it's sad how quickly some people lose sight of the big picture.

      DRM is bad. Less DRM is still bad. No DRM is the only good. Let companies know they should stop acting like greedy paranoid entities and make DRM a feature if you must (like WoW and xbox live so). Just make sure your game is worth playing and a good value and you'll be successful.

      Do the right thing. Good things happen.

    16. Re:Sudden outbreak... by fprintf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, so the bad spelling/grammar extends to your subconscious also? Man, this misspelling of "lose" is getting more and more pervasive! We must stop it before we loose the planet... oh noes! it has me too! argh, speeling, grammer, all gone to sh!t. $@$@#$@#$@#$DFAD#@@#$ *thud*

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    17. Re:Sudden outbreak... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's really unfortunate that they chose to take this path. I for another will not be paying for a game which I will have to buy multiple times because it doesn't run under cxgames and on Windows I'll end up having to reinstall it at least 3 times the first year due to Windows unreliability.

      DRM is ultimately the number 1 reason why I don't buy various games. The only other reason that I don't is when my ancient computer won't run them, but I tend to wait until games are in the bargain bin anyways, a good game is going to be just as good a few years later.

      I have bought games which came with this sort of restriction, because they weren't labeled as such, and I will not be buying _any_ products from them ever again, DRMed or otherwise.

      It really sucks, because I wanted to play spore, it did, and still does, appear to be a game that I'd really enjoy. I just hope that they realize what complete assholes they're being and take the cap off of installs.

      OTOH, if this is an incorrect reading and they mean number of different machines, that's far less obnoxious. I still wouldn't be buying it, but it's not quite as bad.

    18. Re:Sudden outbreak... by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.bz2
      ^
      |
      The above "whoosh" has been compressed with BZip2 as the full length of such a "whoosh" as comes from missing the joke so completely would run up against the lameness filter about 37 consecutive times before I'd have a chance to edit it.

      Spore. Loose. Think about it.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    19. Re:Sudden outbreak... by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

      Oh, hell. That wasn't supposed to be positioned there.

      Um, scroll down a bit. And then...yeah.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    20. Re:Sudden outbreak... by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      loose is a verb too.

      --
      Why not fork?
    21. Re:Sudden outbreak... by Doppleganger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game This is exactly why I'm not going to buy the PC version of Mass Effect right away, even though I was previously thinking of getting it as soon as it came out. I'll be holding out until my future use of the game is no longer dependent on the whims of EA/Bioware. Whether that is due to an official patch or piracy, I really don't care.

      I have tons of games that came from companies that are no longer around, or companies that have completely changed since those games came out. I've reinstalled my OS or upgraded my computer countless times since those games came out. They still work fine for me, and I don't have to jump through hoops every time I need to reinstall the software I paid money for.

      I seriously doubt EA/Bioware will be quick to release a patch to fix this once the game is out. So, even though I fully intend to buy the game, I'm stuck with cheering for the pirates.
    22. Re:Sudden outbreak... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Can you imagine if you had to call in and plead your case every time you wanted to install Sim City 2000? That game has survived a lot more than a measly 3 machines.
      Expecting 3 installs to be mostly sufficient when many gamers replace their gaming rig every couple of years is admitting that the game is a throwaway. When our only guarantee that we'll still be able to play the game in 10 years are our confidence that whatever they do, the pirates will crack it, the pirates become heroes and preservers of gaming history in our minds.

    23. Re:Sudden outbreak... by TheFrunk · · Score: 1, Troll

      Nice, if I had a mod points I would give one to you. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/5/9/ is very funny ... still laughing

      The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game How is this better then constant validation? So if I install it on my Desktop, Laptop and maybe at work ... I would only play it on one computer at a time. Now if one of the machines crashes, I am thinking about my Gaming (win XP) Desktop here, it has become unstable and needs a reload soon .... I would have to beg to get one more install.... keep your game! No. Shut up. You can uninstall the game and get one of your three installs back. Flight Simulator X had a TWO install limit, and after the first time I went over that limit (not knowing about the whole uninstall to get a install back issue), they were more than happy to help me out, no begging needed. Please stop being an idiot, and support the developers for once instead of pressing your unrealistic needs on game companies. This goes with anyone below who agrees with the parent, as well.
    24. Re:Sudden outbreak... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I meant "loose", as the verb.

      As in, to loose a Spore upon the world.

      Not as in, to lose a Spore in a field of pollen.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    25. Re:Sudden outbreak... by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've already installed Bioshock twice due to a hard drive failure. Why should I have to call up a company after a certain number of installs to request permission to install a game that I've already purchased? Fuck that. I did legally purchase Bioshock, but I also have a pirate version just in case something were to happen. I will not patronize any further attempts to limit how often I can use the software that I paid for.

    26. Re:Sudden outbreak... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A game company is being an ass about protecting their game, but you let them off the hook because they're being nice about it?

      Assholes are still assholes, there's no way around it.

    27. Re:Sudden outbreak... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Just doesn't sound like EA...."

      Let me explain:

      "EA now says that validation will now only occur when a user attempts to download new content for either game. (small print: new content will be released every 10-15 days, patches also considered "new" content)"

      Make sense now? :)

    28. Re:Sudden outbreak... by TheFrunk · · Score: 1

      you're requesting access to play, not install. Of course you made up your mind and plan on pirating future PC games, so your opinion is now invalid. Have a wonderful day.

    29. Re:Sudden outbreak... by TheFrunk · · Score: 1

      That's exactly right, they were nice enough to help me out, I didn't mind one bit. Also, since when is trying to protect yourself from profit loss "Being an ass"? Do you motherfuckers WANT these companies to give up? P.S: Thanks for the troll whoever modded me down, you are the true problem with PC gaming. FUCK YEA FREE SOFTWARE FOREVER, WOO~

    30. Re:Sudden outbreak... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      The parent did not indicate that they plan on pirating future games. They did indicate that they don't plan on purchasing more games from vendors who use DRM. Folks can, ya know, not play (pirate or purchase) games sold only with DRM, and nothing the parent said directly contradicts intent on their part to go that course.

      It's called "giving people the benefit of a doubt". Perhaps you've heard of it? If someone says they're going to take some action, and that action can be taken in a {legal,illegal,moral,immoral} way, it behooves polite society to assume the better of strangers unless one has reason to expect otherwise (beyond, perhaps, one's own unwillingness to take a stand and do the moral thing).

    31. Re:Sudden outbreak... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      "Selling" software which one has no guarantee of being able to play in 20 years (even on a emulator) is indeed being... if not an ass, then certainly a party which doesn't play fair. If I "buy" something, I expect to be able to use it in perpetuity.

      Now, I subscribe to GameTap, and I don't object that if I stop subscribing I will no longer be able to play any previously-downloaded games -- because that's part of the up-front conditions. For transactions modeled as a purchase, on the other hand, there had damned well better be some mechanism to make sure that legitimate customers aren't left out in the cold when they're up for some nostalgia fifteen years down the line.

    32. Re:Sudden outbreak... by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      "you're requesting access to play, not install"

      Is there a practical difference? I gave them money and I expect to be able to use the product that they sold me. As for you predicting my future pirating, you're partially correct. I do (and probably will) pirate games. However, I also buy EVERY game that don't uninstall within an hour. In my humble opinion, I feel that I should pay the developer if I find their product enjoyable. I wish they would feel a similar obligation to ensuring that I can use their software.

  2. Screw them... by packeteer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces, who pointed out that they could not rely on having an internet connection every ten days.'"

    I call BS. There is no reason why anyone would want to not check in. If you are not guilty you have nothing to hide. We dont need to military to be able to relax anyway...

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    1. Re:Screw them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you are just being ignorant. My friend Joey is in the army and I get to talk to him maybe once a month. The army has more important things to do with its bandwidth then to let some guy activate his copy of Spore/Mass Effect.

    2. Re:Screw them... by jadedoto · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you can think so selfishly. My brother happens to be over in Iraq now, and doesn't have a reliable internet connection and his job is to sit in a tent in the desert supervising Iraqi soldiers once every other day... It's not that they don't need to relax (after all, spending months away from home in a war torn zone isn't that bad), but rather some of them would maybe prefer to play video games every once in a while as opposed to jerking off with their buddies? I know my brother is annoyed with not playing his Steam games, and I'm sure that group of military folks complaining about not having an internet connection have a completely valid complaint. And yes, there's nothing to be concerned about when you have legit software, but it's annoying when you can't use the software so that the company making it can squeeze more money out of their software.

    3. Re:Screw them... by packeteer · · Score: 0

      Oh wow nobody can pick up the sarcasm eh? I figured by saying "If you are not guilty you have nothing to hide" people would pick up the ridiculousness of having to check in every 10 days. Of course the military should be able to play games, thats why i mentioned (sarcastically) that they need to be able to relax.

      It's really too bad that EA can't see how rediculous an idea this was untill the military protests it. I supose though that is a good tactic becuase who can not support troops oversees? It just depresses me that if it was not for military gamers this might not have happened. Civilian gamers are just too easy to push around i guess.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    4. Re:Screw them... by Grave · · Score: 3, Funny

      So it could be said that our military is not only protecting us from terrorists and imaginary weapons of mass destruction, but from evil corporations as well now?

      *salute*

    5. Re:Screw them... by morari · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe your brother should have went out searching for a brain instead of signing up for the service. It would have done him, and probably the rest of the world, a lot more good. It's hard to have pity on people that place themselves in obviously shitty situations.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    6. Re:Screw them... by syrinx · · Score: 1

      Because of course there's never a need for a military!

      If we all just loved one another there would be no fighting, and there would be puppies and rainbows and unicorns everywhere, and everybody would have their own moon pony!

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  3. Pictured? by WK2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    > EA had planned to use the validation method for upcoming titles Mass Effect and Spore (pictured).

    Those games look a lot like a joystick.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    1. Re:Pictured? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're really advanced.

  4. Publicity by Emb3rz · · Score: 5, Informative

    The original story on this garnered attention from quite a large crowd (even just in the scope of Slashdot). It would have been foolish on their part to plug ahead when, as was pointed out by a poster on the original thread, their customer service was already trained with what to tell people who didn't like the model: 'complain so that we don't make the same mistake with our next game release.'

  5. Phew! by kaos07 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was worried I'd have to actually buy Spore.

    1. Re:Phew! by Perseid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know about everyone else, but protection like this makes me MUCH less likely to buy a game.

    2. Re:Phew! by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was more worried I would have to boycott Spore. Checking in when I DL content is ok cause then I am connected, but if the game is going to stop working due to extended lack of access to a connection, well... fuck em.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    3. Re:Phew! by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was worried I'd have to pirate it.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    4. Re:Phew! by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure I undestand why you're less likely to buy it after the changes. There's no regularily set phone-home-and-authenticate functionality so after the intial install an online registration you never have to bother validating your copy of the game if you don't want to get new patches or play online (both of which require you to have an internet connection in order to accomplish.) so I fail to see what the fuss is about.

      I suppose it sucks if you don't have internet access (but then how are you posting to Slashdot?) to begin with, but considering they dropped the overly silly requirement of having the CD/DVD in the drive while playing the game, they've more than made concessions. I'll also mention that this allows you to easily install and enjoy the game on multiple systems since you don't have to haul the stupid CD/DVD around.

      Either I've completely misunderstood you or I can't even comprehend what you're objections to the new scheme that they've developed are.

    5. Re:Phew! by statemachine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...after the intial install an online registration you never have to bother validating your copy of the game if you don't want to get new patches or play online... they dropped the overly silly requirement of having the CD/DVD in the drive while playing the game

      Shelving the new requirement of needing a connection every few days, and then dumping the old requirement of occupying my DVD drive with a disk, is excellent news. Alcohol 120% will be out of business, but I'm glad I won't need them.

      This is a win for both sides. Company saves money on non-game related development and infrastructure; customers' frustration level drops.

    6. Re:Phew! by Perseid · · Score: 1

      I meant the protection they were going to use before they changed their minds. Sorry for being confusing.

    7. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely agreed.

      I have zero pirated games (or any other software for that matter), but I have decided against buying games because of draconian DRM measures (Bioshock for example).

    8. Re:Phew! by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      What about when a manufacturer discriminates against certain nationalities?
      I bought the game Supreme Commander Forged Alliance, and the manufacturer issued a patch that removes Securom disk checking from the game, BUT is doesn't work in Russian, Polish and Chinese releases. I am unlucky enough to have bought the Polish version instead of pirating it off the net. Now they tell me that all Poles, Russians and Chinese are thieves and give me the middle finger. Now THAT is more annoying than DRM in the first place, it really pisses me off that I'm still treated like a second-class customer because of where I live.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    9. Re:Phew! by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either I've completely misunderstood you or I can't even comprehend what you're objections to the new scheme that they've developed are.

      I think you misunderstood him.
      He said "protection like this makes me MUCH less likely to buy a game", I believe "protection like" referred to the DRM malware itself. I believe his position is that the "new and improved" malware is absolutely no different than the the original malware that the company just got publicly spanked for.

      The one and only change announced here is nothing more than an announcement that it won't phone home as much. That's it. It's still exactly the identical malware, the code is still just as hostile, it merely hides that hostility slightly better merely by trimming back the most obvious attacks on running on a ten-day-timer.

      Among many other issues, if the company closes up shop or if their server gets hit by lightning or anything else, this malware still attacks your system. It is still actively hostile and it still actively prevents you from using the software you bought and it still wages an active war against any attempt to get your computer and your software working properly.

      Yes, their motivation for it is an attempt to reduce piracy. However that does not change the fact that it is hostile code, does not change the fact that it is maleware.

      I suppose it sucks if you don't have internet access (but then how are you posting to Slashdot?)

      Just because I'm posting to Slashdot from this computer, and doing so today, does not mean that the computer I install it on to play is connected to the internet, or even that I will have any handy access to the internet at all at that time. Which is aside from the point that by computer shouldn't be "phone home" to them at all unless I ask it to, and that it is entirely illegitimate for the software to interfere with my usage of my computer and usage of the game I bought if their DRM server goes down or even I merely *don't* have my computer call them over the internet.

      the overly silly requirement of having the CD/DVD in the drive while playing the game,

      Right, MALWARE.
      It's malware, in contrast to legitimate valuable software such as a CD emulator utilities. Such utilities are valuable for playing old games that assume data is on the CD for the mere reason that hard drives weren't big enough to fully install the game back then... and which as also legitimate and valuable for working around stupid DRM CD-check type malware.
      And hypothetically, a equivalent legitimate valuable utility to enable me to install and run the game I bought even when I have no internet access, or to install and run the game I bought even if the company goes out of business or their DRM servers otherwise go offline, or even to do so when I do have access and merely decline to notify the company over the internet.

      So while removing the ten-day timer is a "good thing", I'm still just as pissed off today as I was yesterday.

      If one day story comes out that a company plans to actively add lead and mercury to the milk you buy, and the next day a story comes out that that the company has decided to stick with the lead but not add the mercury, is that supposed to be good news? Are we supposed to be happy about that? Are we supposed to say 'ok, I'm not pissed at them anymore"? Are be supposed to be GRATEFUL that they decided not to add the mercury?

      No.

      Either I am not skip the milk entirely...
      or I will get the milk from some Good Samaritan who volunteers to do some work to filter the lead out. And if that Good Samaritan also happens to offer me that clean milk for free, well gee, that's a seriously tough call there...... I can pay for poisoned milk, or I can get nice clean milk for free.... oooooo that's a real toughie.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think the reaction to EA's scheme is really overblown. In 185 posts to this article, I'm the only one who doesn't think EA's plan was outrageous. WTF? You can't install and play HL2 without Steam, can you? And for games that are primarily based on an online experience, like Battlefield etc, you can't play without logging in and having your copy of the game verified, can you? Spore is not much different, since much of its content will be online.

      The overreaction to this just seems retarded. CryTek just said they couldn't afford to do PC-only games like Crysis anymore because they get fucked by shitbag pirates.

      Fuck 'em? No, fuck the pirates, and fuck YOU if you have a problem with someone wanting to protect a product/service they spent years and tens of millions of dollars creating from being stolen by millions of snotnose teeny boppers.

    11. Re:Phew! by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      When copy protection totally works PC gaming will be dead.

      I was starting to be wary of Spore... I just wanted it to succeeed too badly so I knew it would fail.

    12. Re:Phew! by BigJClark · · Score: 1


      Same. Recently, I have become aware of an incident where an EA game (Latest C&C) was running fine on a 64bit OS, then decided to turn itself off (It was legit, it must have got a call from home update that this OS was not supported. The software had said this was a copy protection violation. Sorry? A legal game, works fine, then shuts itself off after a couple weeks of usage?

      So copy protection has actually made this person obtain an illegal cracked copy to play a game he bought. Go figure.

      --

      Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
  6. So they did it for the media coverage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to get people talking about the game again. Pretty smart move, I guess.

  7. The Horror by nick_davison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces, who pointed out that they could not rely on having an internet connection every ten days. 1914/18... Trenchfoot becomes rife due to lack of access to dry footwear/socks.

    1939/45... Troops freeze through the Battle of the Bulge, across Russia.

    2008... Access to certain videogames sometimes limited in certain situations for a few days until net access can be resecured.

    I know "Won't anybody think of the troops!" is second only to "Won't anybody think of the children!" and can thus never be questioned unless you're a terrorist as well as a paedophile.. but there comes a point where the rallying cry is used for such ludicrously trivial things that it just devalues everyone involved.
    1. Re:The Horror by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, what? Nobody is comparing it to trench foot or freezing in the winter because you're stuck outdoors and people are shooting at you. However there is a large class of people who go without internet connections for long periods of time, and that class of people doesn't appreciate this kind of DRM scheme. It says nothing about other bad things they may experience.

      Your argument could be used to justify almost any bad treatment.

      "Sarge, this stew tastes like horse meat!"

      "Shut up and eat your stew, Private. Just be glad you don't have trench foot!"

      Or, what the hell, I guess I shouldn't ever complain about anything, because some of my ancestors had to live through famines.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:The Horror by Perseid · · Score: 1

      Here's where your analogies fall down: What EA was planning to do was pure choice, a choice based on greed and the fact that EA hasn't actually cared about video games for many years.

    3. Re:The Horror by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

      But horse meat is tasty >_>

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    4. Re:The Horror by Moridineas · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wow, talk about completely and utterly missing the point!

      Soldiers--and many thousands of US government personnel deployed aboard--frequently don't have continual internet usage. (btw, I've personally run into a number of US military people who play WoW...but anyway). They are a large block of people who buy video games and have downtime to play games irregularly.

      EA WOULD be stupid to ignore that block, but not for any of the tortured reasoning you attempt.

    5. Re:The Horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that it more of a testament to our times that it is easier to cop out with "we are thinking of our troops" rather than state: we hate our customers, but are afraid that they wont buy our product. The most imporant thing for coporations is to let the public "know" that they dont care what they think, otherwise the public might know where the power lies.

    6. Re:The Horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces, who pointed out that they could not rely on having an internet connection every ten days. 1914/18... Trenchfoot becomes rife due to lack of access to dry footwear/socks.

      1939/45... Troops freeze through the Battle of the Bulge, across Russia.

      2008... Access to certain videogames sometimes limited in certain situations for a few days until net access can be resecured.

      I know "Won't anybody think of the troops!" is second only to "Won't anybody think of the children!" and can thus never be questioned unless you're a terrorist as well as a paedophile.. but there comes a point where the rallying cry is used for such ludicrously trivial things that it just devalues everyone involved. ur so off topic and retarded its silly.

      No one is crying for the troops, hes just pointing out they were the largest group of plaintants. I just got out of the navy and yea WE PLAY ALOTZ OF VIDEO GAMEZ, but our internet sucks balls and we can only send emails anyhow. So yea when we spend $50 on a video game and we go underway for 40 days it'd be fucking nice to play the damn game on my fucking laptop in my tiny fucking rack for 15 minutes before some other asshole yanks my curtain open and sends me on some pointless errand about the ship.

      That is, if thats okay with the developer.

    7. Re:The Horror by db32 · · Score: 1

      The depressing thing is that for all of the "Think of the troops" that has gotten waved around this is about the only time it actually worked. The Bush administration has managed to start a 2 front war while saber rattling about a 3rd, DRASTICALLY cut funding to an already suffering VA system, hack and slash on housing through the privitization crap and lowered BAH rates, ever increasing deployment lengths, and then to top it all off Congress coming out and saying that rather military wages are comparible to their civilian counterparts. So at least they will think of the troops playing games to take their mind of the fact that they have been screwed in nearly every other conceivable way in the last 8 years.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    8. Re:The Horror by lterrym · · Score: 1

      Um, what? Nobody is comparing it to trench foot or freezing in the winter because you're stuck outdoors and people are shooting at you. However there is a large class of people who go without internet connections for long periods of time, and that class of people doesn't appreciate this kind of DRM scheme. It says nothing about other bad things they may experience.

      I don't think that was his point, actually. It's that "think of the troops" has become an instant-win trump card, just like "think of the children."

    9. Re:The Horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is giving someone horse meat stew considered bad treatment? It's a tasty meat, keeps well, and is full of iron! Yeah, it's not as tender as beef, but so what?

    10. Re:The Horror by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      If that was his point then it was a poor one, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the story in question. It was not presented as, "Think of the troops, they're putting their lives on the line for you!" It was presented as "Here's about a million potential customers with a lot of time and money on their hands, all in the prime gaming demographic, who will not be purchasing your game if you follow through with this dumb-ass move. Not everybody has a 24x7 broadband internet connection, you know, and it just happens that a big chunk of the US Army doesn't."

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    11. Re:The Horror by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Regardless of its actual merits, it has a reputation as being a meat used only for cost cutting when the buyer is not the person who will be eating it. Try shipping horse meat MREs to Iraq and watch yourself get washed away by a tide of ill will.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    12. Re:The Horror by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

      So the ultimate rights stealer would be if we sent our children into Iraq. Then we could say, "Won't anyone think of the children troops!" Eureka!

    13. Re:The Horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1939/45... Troops freeze through the Battle of the Bulge, across Russia.

      I'm pretty sure the Battle of the Bulge was in the Ardennes, which is in Europe not Russia. In fact, the US army's offical name for the battle is the Battle of the Ardennes.

  8. Um, there's a problem with this. by raving+griff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    EA now says that validation will now only occur when a user attempts to download new content for either game. Spore is built on downloadable content. Throughout the game, the creatures you encounter, the worlds you visit, the buildings you see--they are all player-created objects and will all be downloaded in the background while the game is running. Spore is a game that only works well with downloadable content, and if I have to enter a validation code every time the game decides to download a creature or a planet, I'm not sure the promising gameplay will be worth the hassle.

    1. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You don't have to enter a validation code. The validation code (or hash thereof) is stored on your computer and checked against the database automatically when you try to download content.

      So, unless you're downloading new stuff, it'll never try to re-authenticate. The previous scheme mandated that you re-authenticate every 10 days regardless of whether you could go online at the time or not which was pretty onerous for people who don't have 'net connections... like me when I visit my parents on their boat. A place where I'd like to play games when I can't be online, y'know?

      I hope they get a revoke tool like Bioshock. I have 3 machines that I'd play Spore on already (laptop, home game machine, work game machine). What if I replace one? I'm screwed :/

    2. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to actually enter a code except for the very first activation. The subsequent validations are invisible to the user and are merely to ensure that the copy is still legit and the key has not been disseminated.

    3. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      You probably won't have to enter a code multiple times by hand.....
        Your code will probably be saved on your system...

    4. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that by definition, if you're downloading new content, you have an active net connection. The 10 day thing was arbitrary. A user might be without net connection at that time, at which point they wouldn't be accessing such content but would still be barred from playing the single player game.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The complaint was that people with very limited internet access can't play the game when they're offline for several days. If you're downloading content then you're able to get online and the check isn't as big of a problem.

      If you're complaint is that the game has DRM... then this obviously doesn't get rid of it.

    6. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My understanding from my following of the game since it was first announced is that due to the way in which the various creatures that inhabit a universe are defined, it's possible to download thousands of them with relatively little effort. I forget which conference or event it was at, but Will Wright explained that due the fact that everything in the game is proceedurally generated, it is possible to express a creature design not in terms of graphics skins and other large files, but as something very similar to DNA. The game reads a few thousand bytes worth of data and is able to take that information to recreate the creature that someone else uploaded. Even if you're playing on dial-up, you'll be able to get this new content ridiculously fast.

      You've also made the assumption that you have to enter a validation code. Why wouldn't the game just store the key that was used to register it and automatically take care of it? It probably won't be a hastle unless the key has been orgied out to all of your friends and the authentication server flags it as suspicious and bans it. There might be a few false positives but for the most part I don't forsee you getting locked out unless you're playing with a pirated copy.

    7. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Taelron · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same Damn thing and checking the forum first to see if anyone else said it...

      So now instead of evey 10 days looking to verify you, its going to check anytime you need some new tidbit of data... Which could be multiple times a day...

    8. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      Except, I assume the game will store the CD-key like pretty much every game with a key has ever done. So, no, this is not an issue. They are providing a service to those who pay, not punishing them for buying the game, this is exactly how copy protection should work.

    9. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Spore disc will come with an extensive library of pre-created content that will be used if a user sets specific options to indicate that they do not want to download other peoples content.

    10. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Utoxin · · Score: 1

      Spore is a game that only works well with downloadable content, and if I have to enter a validation code every time the game decides to download a creature or a planet, I'm not sure the promising gameplay will be worth the hassle. Who said anything about entering a validation code? All it does is take the serial number and machine ID that it generated and both of which are stored internally, and phone home, to make sure that the central server still says they're okay.
      --
      Matthew Walker
      http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool
    11. Re:Um, there's a problem with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't going to get you to input your cd key each time.. At worst with spore they'll periodically check an md5 sum or similar of your cd key with their servers..Not ask you to enter it each time..that'd be ridiculous and is way out in it's not going to happen land.

  9. I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DRM has no right to exist, and anyone who implements it should be severely punished. DRM should be resisted by any and all means necessary. We deserve a DRM free future, but we will have to fight for it. Do everything you can to end DRM today.

    1. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't want to come of as pro-DRM, but I have a simple question for you?

      Do you plan to purchase or play this game?

      Considering that it's a heavily anticipated game and generally recognized as being one of the more creative and innovative titles to come in in a while, it's probably reasonable for me to expect that you want to play Spore. Your stated hate for DRM leads me to believe that you couldn't bring yourself to actually pay for any product that comes with any type of DRM. Assuming that you both want to play this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it?

      If so, you're contributing to the reason why these companies think they need to have DRM. I can understand why people will pirate things when cost is a factor since I did it myself once upon a time, but if you pirate this game simply to spite the paid version which has DRM you're probably not doing the cause any help.

      I appologize in advance for potentially mislabeling you or constructing a situation involving you from so little information, but I have a feeling that there are a few people who will pirate the game just because they dislike the notion of DRM despite the fact that they're going to play the hell out of it and had the money to easily purchase it.

    2. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

      I would buy this game even if it were closed source. I'm not RMS. But the DRM is where I draw the line. I am a Linux user yes, but I have closed source software on my Linux boxes including Windows programs that run under Wine. But those programs don't have DRM.

    3. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Ok, since you're taking it upon yourself to arbitrarily declare "rights," and you clearly want to control people's actions in this way (morality police!), I have a question: you say DRM has no right to exist. What about CD checks? License keys? etc? because it seems that you're complaining about all of those things?

    4. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, I think you have it a bit backwards. This might be how The Industry thinks, but the lessening of DRM suggests that they've actually realised it's not quite so simple as that.

      You state it yourself: Assuming that you both want to play this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it?

      The answer to that is clearly "yes", which means "I would have bought if it weren't for the DRM". Publishers are realising that not only do most copy protection schemes not hugely inconvenience pirates, but it actively inconveniences your paying customers.

      if you pirate this game simply to spite the paid version which has DRM you're probably not doing the cause any help.

      If you buy it regardless of the DRM, what incentive does that give the publishers to stop using it?

      I think it's more accurate to say that this is the ONLY thing* you can do to help, but it only helps if you make sure they know that they are losing sales specifically because of the DRM measures. Mentioning it on forums is a good and semi-anonymous way to get the point across. If they're reading "yeah I love the game, the copy protection is annoying but it's worth the hassle" then they'll get the message that ... their paying customers think it's worth the hassle, and they'll keep using it so long as they think it helps reduce piracy*. If they're constantly reading "I would've bought it, but the protection was too invasive" then their attitude toward it will change.

      What it comes down to is that they make a list of pros and cons for and against their protection schemes. In the pros list, they have "might reduce piracy, for a little while". In the cons list they have "increases development and support costs, inconveniences users".

      So, make sure they add "reduces sales" to the cons list, and it starts looking like a very poor return on investment.

      * - since nobody knows how many people have pirated a game, not buying it is effectively the same as pirating it. The fact that any piracy figures are (by necessity) made up means that it gets the blame any time sales are lower than hoped.

    5. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There have actually been some studies done at publishers. It's not hard for them to monitor torrent/warez/crack sites.

      The presence of a zero-day or first-week torrent release and crack has been shown to have a notable impact on first week sales of a title. When the cracked torrent release hits within the first couple weeks after a launch, sales have a detectable sudden drop.

      Unfortunately I can't link to or cite these sources as they aren't exactly posted on the web to read, but if you think about it, it's fairly logical.

    6. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by cliffski · · Score: 0, Troll

      Insightful? give me a break. you are just whining whilst making no attempt to explain how content creators get paid without the ability to prevent piracy. I'll restate your complaint:

      "Tax has no right to exist, and anyone who implements it should be severely punished. Tax should be resisted by any and all means necessary. We deserve a Tax free future, but we will have to fight for it. Do everything you can to end Tax today."

      An ignorant and one-sided, silly position, but no different to your post.
      Unless you want no entertainment or digital content to be produced? (or only produced by hobbyists). personally I LIKE professionally made entertainment content, and don't mind paying for it.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    7. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

      You are comparing two unlike things.

      DRM is a means of turning our computers against us. It is an abuse of our rights as computer owners.

      Taxes are small government levied fees on property. They don't determine how I can use my property. Almost all DRM invades privacy and exists to restrict uers to a monopoly platform.

    8. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I see it is I have been looking forward to a PC version of Mass Effect. If they had stuck with the idea of 10 day validations and 3 total activations I would have simply pirated it since the pirated version wouldn't have those annoyances. Now that they are removing these flaws, I will certainly buy it.

      I have been burned too fucking many times in the past. Bought too many games that didn't even work until I applied a crack to a game that should have just worked. Returning the game was never an option because I wouldn't know if it worked or not until it was opened and there are no returns on opened software. Those companies are fortunate that I was nice enough to not sue them for fraud, but instead sought out my own solution (a crack).

      This change of heart has restored some of my faith in both Bioware and EA. Let's just hope they continue down this path.

    9. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      DRM is on the other hand annoying by default. A CD-key is not DRM, it's quite simply a way to not lose bandwidth to non-customers.

    10. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by AdamReyher · · Score: 1

      If you buy it regardless of the DRM, what incentive does that give the publishers to stop using it?
      You've now become a customer. While it is, indeed, true that these companies do anything but listen to paying customers, there's certainly more incentive for them to listen to your suggestions rather than the suggestions of a pirate.

      I personally don't like DRM in the way that it exists today. In most circumstances it's too restrictive. However, I'm all for protecting intellectual property with it if used properly and used with common sense.
      --
      The Computations of AdamR
      http://www.adamreyher.com
    11. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent logic there.

      Vote for me. I'll waste your tax money and do lots of bad stuff. But I'll have more incentive to listen to your suggestions.

      And laugh.

    12. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by aztektum · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase my quote on the Mass Effect forum:

      If you stick with this DRM scheme, I will only buy your game when I CANNOT find a hacked/cracked copy for download on the Internet (which I also promised I would not download :)).

      This is better, or at least good enough for me to buy a copy now (which is cool I really wanted to play but have no plan to buy a 360 right now). So yea, I at least plan to buy it and follow through.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    13. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by stupidflanders · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's a strange justification for theft:

      I think it's more accurate to say that this is the ONLY thing* you can do to help
      Have you ever thought of... just NOT playing the game. As in, at all? I understand I'll probably be modded troll because I'm talking crazy talk, but seriously. If there is something that you don't like, you could always:
      * Complain to the company. (Obviously, in this case it worked! Shock!)
      * Boycott it. Don't buy it. Don't play it. Don't buy their other games, even used. Even if corporate won't listen to you, they will listen to retailers. Find other creative ways to protest. Here's a site with 198 ways to have a non-violent protest. (Although I'm not sure in this case #22, "Protest disrobings" - aka, mooning the company - would work :-p)
      * If you own stock in that company, dump it.
      * Mail peanuts to the company (or in this case, lots of mushrooms -- get it, spores? :-p)

      Oblig. Office Space ref:

      JOANNA: So you're stealing.
      PETER: Ah, no. No. You don't understand. It's, uh, very complicated. It's, uh, it's, it's aggregate so I'm talking about fractions of a cent that, uh, over time, they add up to a lot.
      JOANNA: Ok. So you're gonna make a lot of money, right?
      PETER:Yeah.
      JOANNA:Ok. That's not yours?
      PETER:Well, it, it becomes ours.
      JOANNA:How's that not stealing?
      PETER:I don't think, I don't think I'm explaining this very well.
    14. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you plan to purchase or play this game?"

      Maybe. Once the game comes out and is properly reviewed, if I like the sounds of it and the price isn't too high, I'll consider buying it. But if the DRM is too onerous, I won't buy it no matter how good it is. Case in point: I have yet to buy Half-Life 2/Portal/Team Fortress 2, even though the reviews are glowing and the price is very reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't like the terms.

      I don't pirate games. Ever. I've even paid for multiple copies of some games so that I can set them up in a home LAN and play with friends and family. But I will circumvent DRM to improve load times and convenience (e.g., not requiring the CD). I consider it no different from modding the game to improve the gameplay.

      I have better things to do than devote time and computer resources to whatever stupid DRM scheme the manufacturer foolishly thinks will stop piracy in its tracks. I don't pirate games, so their efforts are a waste of time for me. They don't make the product better in any way. If the DRM is onerous and not easily circumvented then it can stay on the shelf. No sale.

    15. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand your sentiment, but then again a company has a right to do whatever they want with regards to DRM, just as I have every right to choose not to purchase any of their products if they do.

    16. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      Have you ever thought of... just NOT playing the game. As in, at all?

      Sure, and sometimes I don't. But tell me: what difference does it make to the publisher/developer of the game if I choose to never ever play it, rather than to pirate it? The obvious answer is nothing, as they don't make a sale to me either way. That's not entirely accurate though, as a person who plays the game will at least be more aware of the company and their previous products. They might even find themselves pleasantly surprised by the quality of the game, as I was with Portal, and decide to buy it.

      Obviously, this does require a lot of honesty from the pirater, as it's easy to say "well it was fairly good but not $90 good" after playing a game, particularly if it's a game like Portal that you're unlikely to play again.

    17. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      > Your stated hate for DRM leads me to believe that you couldn't bring yourself to actually
      > pay for any product that comes with any type of DRM. Assuming that you both want to play
      > this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it?

      Actually, I do both. I preordered Bioshock and got to play it on the release date, which was fun. I also cracked it as soon as the crack was available, because I don't want the CD in the drive. It will be the same with Spore. I have it on preorder right now, so I'll get it immediately. If they really do let people play without the damn CD, it might take longer before I get a crack. But any DRM will have inconveniences, like the three install rule, so I'm pretty sure I'll end up cracking it eventually. Since I don't really care about other people's crappy creations, it won't be a big loss anyway. (And I'm sure someone will come up with a way to package all that content from the cache and share it by torrent)

    18. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mind at all that when I ask to download new content for Spore the server asks "hey, did you buy this?" and then my computer answers "yea, here's my receipt.". That in no way limits me, but it does help reduce easy piracy. The previous version *would* have limited me, in that I couldn't play more then 10 days without internet, but the this version doesn't limit anything. Could it still be considered DRM? Yes, I think it could... digital *rights* management should give me the additional *right* to download new professional content.

      That said.... I don't like the DRM that stops me from installing Spore on as many computers as I like over my lifetime, and I *really* hope it doesn't require a disc in the drive. All that does is add restrictions, not add rights. *That* kind of DRM (digital restrictions management) needs to die a painful and violent death.

    19. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If so, you're contributing to the reason why these companies think they need to have DRM.

      With enough people publicly talking about it, maybe.... just maybe.... they will start to get the clue applying DRM schemes will block some non-trivial number of people from pirating the game (who then may or may not buy it instead) AND it will run off some paying customers AND it will ALSO convert a non-trivial number of paying customers into pirates.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    20. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Complain to the company. (Obviously, in this case it worked! Shock!)

      No, it didn't.

      One day a company announces they plan to put lead and mercury in the milk they sell.
      The next day the company announces that they will only put lead in their milk.

      And I supposed to feel grateful?

      Hell no, I'm just as pissed off as I was yesterday.

      Either I'm going to skip the milk entirely, or I'll get the milk from the Good Samaritan who volunteers to do the work filtering the lead out himself. And if that Good Samaritan then offers the milk for free - well gee - pay for poisoned milk or get clean milk for free - pay for poisoned milk or get clean milk for free - gee that's a toughie. I dunno... that clean milk sure sounds swell.... I might just be forced to go with the free stuff.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    21. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by cliffski · · Score: 0, Troll

      wtf?

      what monopoly platform is that?

      If someone wants to sell a game for Windows, they rightfully want to make sure they are selling ONE copy, because if you want the distribution rights to bioshock, rather than the playing rights, that's maybe $4million vs $30.
      So quite rightly they take steps to force the product to be non distributable.
      that's not an invasion of your privacy or your flipping human rights. If you want to get upset about human rights, go to Burma right now, or campaign against North Korea or Iran. Whining that you cant copy your games from your mates is pretty low and pathetic on the "look I'm being repressed!" scale...

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    22. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the money to buy, and have been looking forward to playing it for some time, but won't buy it unless the 3 install restriction is removed. I'm not going to buy a product that relies on a companies activation server to function, especially a company such as EA. EA switched off the master servers for a bunch of their online games just last year.

      I will most likely pirate it (i really want to play this game) but if the downloadable content doesn't work on pirated versions then I'll have to do without. Screw DRM.

    23. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, take the price of the game donate it to a mod or ther free development group and attach a note that says that you dfonated because you're pissed off with spore drm. At the end of the uyear all these little companies can send a note to EA thanking them with a little $ value attached.

      Upsides we get more open games, DRM get's a kick in the fking ass, and you don't feel like a pirate.

      Imagining all pirates doing this made me pee myself... just a tiny little bit.

    24. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you plan to purchase or play this game?

      Not anymore.

      I did, however, buy Sins of a Solar Empire.

      I'll wait and see how bad the DRM is on Spore and Mass Effect.

      When a gaming company sells a game, it wants you to play for a few months, then throw it away to buy something new. But when I buy a game, I want to be able to play it forever.

      I want to be a customer, but that means I want a product that works just like a book. Or a CD. Or a DVD. I don't want to pay-per-listen, I don't want to pay-per-view, and (with the exceptions of MMORPGs, where I'm paying monthly maintenance subscription for the upkeep of game-company-owned centralized servers), I don't want to pay-per-play. If I want to read it again in 20 years (and yes, there are some games I have replayed every once in a while over timespans of 10-20 years, most notably the Infocom text adventures, Civ1, DOOM 1, and Elite), I demand that right.

      The market rejected pay-per-listen when RIAA offered it.
      The market rejected pay-per-view when DIVX and MPAA (the phones-home-to-see-if-it-can-self-destruct Circuit Shitty/MPAA-sponsored rental disc format, not the codec)
      This is merely the market rejecting the thin edge of the wedge that ultimately leads to pay-per-play, as offered by EA.

      Make me enter a key. Make me take care of the original CD. But no online activation -- because 10 years from now, those activation servers will be long dead, and while I'm sure George Lucas would love for nobody to watch anything but the Latest And Greatest Star Wars Super-HD-Mega Remix Edit, some of us are quite happy with the laserdisc as originally pressed, in which Han Shot First.

    25. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not the poster to which you are replying, but I'd like to point out that I was a huge HL fan and still have not played HL2 due to Steam required activation. The same goes for the Sin Chronicles (also Steam) and Bioshock (SecuROM).

      People in my position are in a conundrum. If you buy it and crack it so it doesn't activate, then you haven't sent the message you want; I mean why should the publishers stop with this kind of DRM if you're going to pay anyway? If you don't buy it and sales actually are poor, well then it was piracy or just a bad title (in their eyes) and that dev studio gets less of a shot at future project funding. Note, that at no time does the fact that you did or did not download a pirate copy ever really enter the picture.

      What should people in my position do? I still have not pirated any of these games, and never bought them either. I guess I could try to buy them 2nd hand and then crack them, it's the only thing I can think of.

      PS. I really wish I could get every one of your to Boycott Steam, really, it's a Bad Thing.

    26. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, let me boil it down for you:

      Last August Bioshock was released, single player game with SecuROM protection requiring online activation with limits on how many times you could activate. There was a huge outcry.

      Today they announce even worse activation scheme on largely single player games, then dial them back, give them Bioshock's scheme (all they ever wanted), and skip the outcry and even get some praise. You are falling for it.

    27. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately I can't link to or cite these sources as they aren't exactly posted on the web to read, but if you think about it, it's fairly logical.
      Because they're bullshit. The people that pirate it weren't going to buy it at the store anyway. I'm not saying that it's not a lost sale, and I'm not saying that it's because they are in the right, but I am saying it because it's the truth.
    28. Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I did, however, buy Sins of a Solar Empire."

      For those of you who don't know what he means, the guys who made this game (and GalCiv 1 and 2) don't put DRM on their disks and don't make you play with the CD in the tray. They are gamers and they think that kind of thing sucks.

      Their name is StarDock and you should check them out. TotalGaming.net sells all their stuff online, like steam, without the cruddy activation part.

  10. Life goes on by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There probably isn't a lot of love for EA around here (or many parts of the internet in general) but you do have to admit that they responded fairly well to the situation. From what I've read the approach that they're planning to take now is actually pretty good, if not better than what most of us are probably used to dealing with. The fact that I don't need to have the CD in the drive while playing the game is a nice touch, especially for anyone who likes to switch between games frequently.

    The only thing that you could really complain about is the necessity of an internet connection to validate on install. The only other time it bothers to validate is if you're downloading an update or using some other online feature which means you're already connected to the internet.

    As someone who was a little put off by the overly encumbering DRM that was originally planned to be included, I'd like to tip my hat to EA for listening to their customers and making a wise decision.

    1. Re:Life goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why its perfectly fucking useless, and we all know it.

      Time and again we've seen companies try to use DRM to 'secure' their software.

      Time and again hacker groups do us the favour of showing us how to disable that crap and get on with useing the software we own how we want to, without it phoning home.

      And the 'legitimate' customer suffers because their stuck jumping through hoops us criminals don't have to bother with anymore.

      I carry around the XP genuine advantage killer on my thumb drive when ever i travel, its practically a utility now when fixing peoples computers, spyware and virus check, install firefox instead of IE, kill the genuine advantage crap.

    2. Re:Life goes on by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      The thing I object to most of the installation restrictions as stands at the moment is a lifetime install limit. On mass effect, this is 3 installs before you have to make an expensive phone call to EA tech support to plead on a 'case-by-case basis' to be allowed to install your game for a 4th time. Yes, uninstalling and reinstalling into the same copy of windows on the same pc will be 'free' but upgrade the hardware or reinstall windows, and it's another activation gone forever.

      Far, far too low. I'm not going to buy a game that will still working in a few months or a year because I've upgraded my gaming rig once too often, and I'm at the mercy of tech support as to whether I'll be allowed to play my own property.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  11. How about? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't like their policies or practices then don't fucking buy it. Thats the loudest thing you can say.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:How about? by Rasit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't like their policies or practices then don't fucking buy it.

      You need to start thinking like a Suit guy.

      Most of them seems to think they have a God given right to sell as many games as their marketing department projected, if they don't meet the projections then it s clearly due to Piracy and weak DRM.

      If we don't make sure to tell them why we are boycoting them then we will eventually end up with something like this.

    2. Re:How about? by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, apparently there seems to be some sort of middleground here too.

      Whereas I agree that boycotting a certain product can be a very good tactic, I also think that if it's possible (with minimal effort) to let the producer know beforehand that you have problems with some aspects of their product, it can accomplish the same thing where you still get to play their product, and them realising that this time, they took it a bit too far.

      I'd pretty much call that a win-win situation.

      I was btw in the camp of boycotting Spore if this DRM would have shipped with it; But I'm also forgiving enough in this instance that I see they realised that it would have been costing them a lot of customers, and I'll happily buy their game now.

    3. Re:How about? by TheLink · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Why not complain beforehand so that they change their minds? Then you can buy it instead of not buying it because of some stupid DRM?

      After all it actually seems to have worked in this case.

      Your suggested approach has the following disadvantages:
      1) Buyer and Seller lose out
      2) Higher latency/lag in the feedback loop.

      --
    4. Re:How about? by theaceoffire · · Score: 1

      You don't like their policies or practices then don't fucking buy it. Thats the loudest thing you can say. If we do not buy it, they blame piracy.
      If we do buy it, they claim "We would do better, except for pirates".

      Not buying it just justifies worse drm... *sigh*
      --
      I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
    5. Re:How about? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If you don't buy it, then all they know is that their sales are low. If you don't buy it and tell them it's because of the DRM then they know that their sales are low and they know why their sales are low. If a lot of you don't buy it and publicly tell them you didn't buy it then their shareholders know why their sales are low and will hold the board accountable and they, in turn, will hold whoever put the DRM in there accountable.

      In theory, at least.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:How about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that kind of the point? People, especially those in the armed forces, told the company "hey, guess what, if you do this, we won't buy it." The company said "Oh crap, then how about we do X instead."

      People get a product they want, the company makes money, pirates do what the do anyway regardless of copy protection, and everyone wins.

    7. Re:How about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't like their policies or practices then don't fucking buy it. Thats the loudest thing you can say. That's not really true at all, though. You don't buy it, they make up some yarn about how their sales are low because of piracy and then put in the stronger protections next time anyway.

      You need to send a letter or something.
    8. Re:How about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except then they'll just assume (and claim publically) you(or atleast consumers in general) pirated it.

    9. Re:How about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't like their policies or practices then don't fucking buy it. Thats the loudest thing you can say. And it worked, didn't it?

      (and I find the captcha: 'spoonful', a little disturbing)
    10. Re:How about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, standing outside the store with a megaphone and a wood chipper (to put the games after you take them from people) _might_ be louder, but what you suggest is still perhaps the more noble tactic.

  12. Uhhhhh by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that the real reason is because military personnel are non-trivial consumers of entertainment products. When you have a bunch of young people, with a good deal of free money on their hands (if you are deployed in a combat zone you get more pay, and generally have few expenses since everything is handled), and a situation that sucks, well that's a good target for entertainment goods. I know when one of my ex roommates graduated and was getting ready to go off he got a nice laptop and plenty of games and movies. The guys who do Red vs Blue said Iraq was one of the top countries ordering their DVDs. Wasn't Iraqis ordering, it was troops.

    Thus it would be dumb for EA to shut out a large market. Especially since both of these games have strong single player components, and thus are of interest when you aren't going to have net access.

    It isn't being used as a rallying cry, it is that the soldiers were honestly concerned they wouldn't be able to get their game on.

    1. Re:Uhhhhh by XorNand · · Score: 1

      combat pay == "good deal of free money?" Weird... I can relate. I play with computers all day and mysteriously some company keeps depositing a lot of free money into my back account twice a month.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    2. Re:Uhhhhh by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      I dare say free was used in the sense of "not allocated"

    3. Re:Uhhhhh by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Free as in "Money which can be spent on whatever one wishes."

      This isn't hard, and if you are an OSS advocate as you seem to be you ought to know the word has more than one definition.

      When you are living in a crap tent that the military provides for you, eating crap food that the military provides for you, and doing the jobs the military tells you to in their equipment, you discover that your living, dining, and transport expenses are rather low. Thus the money that they pay you is free to be used for pretty much whatever you wish. Also, monies earned while in a combat zone are tax exempt.

    4. Re:Uhhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a submariner. We spend months at a time underwater. Funny thing is, my chief just mentioned the fact that he'd never buy the game due to the crappy DRM scheme. Your take on the impact of the active duty military customer is pretty accurate.

    5. Re:Uhhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm one of the troops, and I actualy sent feedback to their customer dis-service dept about that.

  13. Point taken by miss.nixxi · · Score: 1

    Okay so I get your point. Having been deployed myself it's really wonderful to play video games. For me it relived tension and helped combat depression. So I ask this, why shouldn't I play video games, or have that ability be hindered? Is that a comfort that the military shouldn't have? So when I raised my arm and got sworn in I stopped being a human being? No I don't think so, thanks for thinking that way.

    --
    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."-Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Point taken by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot where you're supposed to believe that the military is full of mindless slave drones willing to do the evil bidding of our President. Don't wreck it. The socialists here are doing important work.

  14. Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Armed pirates are always more effective

  15. New Meme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces, who pointed out that they could not rely on having an internet connection every ten days.


    {meme}Won't someone PLEASE think of the poor soldiers?{/meme}

  16. I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by Aphoxema · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a drunk fit last night I actually sent a rant to them about it, I don't remember what I said exactly but I pointed out that DRM has actually driven me to download games instead of pay for them and if I couldn't expect to defeat the copy protection bullshit then I just wouldn't play the game.

    Nothing no one's thought or said before, but I'm sure if enough gaming curmudgeons drank enough smirnoff ice at the same time while listening to EBM then there would surely be a rival to the mass mailing botnets that don't actually have anything useful to tell anyone.

    It's freaking hot in here and Qwerty pisses me off. I'm going to drink some vinegar and go to bed.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    1. Re:I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QWERTY pissed me off too.
      I've typed in colemak for a year now.

      ~ethana2, too lazy to sign in.

    2. Re:I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      smirnoff ice? You only need that to hand to 16 year old girls in return for favours. Real men drink BEER!

    3. Re:I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by stupidflanders · · Score: 1

      Dude, you should definitely post more when you are drunk. Great post. :-D

      Oh, and to the minors out there... uh, drinking is wrong, kids.

    4. Re:I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by Xiph · · Score: 1

      are you stupid???
      Real men drink ANYTHING!
      Real men drink EVERYTHING!

      Sure smirnoff ice is sugary, take it like a man, don't whine.

      Do remember, that parent also drinks vinegar before going to bed, i suppose to kill the worst part of the smirnoff ice aftertaste...

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    5. Re:I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      I would actually say that "real men", if one could actually make such a claim, have a more discerning and refined taste for alcohol. For example one could say "Real me drink whiskey." I would respond with "Nothing less than a 30 year Glenfiddich." As for beer, I make my own home-brew and get the exact tastes I desire in a beer. Plus, how much Smirnoff ice do you have to down to get wasted? I'd barf from the consumption of sugar alone!

      --
      Balderdash!
    6. Re:I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Are you assuming I'm a man just because I posted on Slashdot? :3

      I'm a real light weight with alcohol, especially on the day I run out of codeine

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    7. Re:I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      And the vinegar's to fight off the indigestion!

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    8. Re:I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME! by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      vinegar also helps ward off mosquitoes. And, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a man. Even if it's /.

      --
      Balderdash!
  17. More to worry about than that by sweatyboatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only thing that you could really complain about is the necessity of an internet connection to validate on install. As with any complicated software system (especially one acting over the internet), there's a lot that can go wrong. If it doesn't work for any reason, they'll have spent a lot of money turning happy customers into angry returners.

    A wise decision would be to forgo the DRM altogether, and apply the savings to reducing the retail price of the games. I guarantee that will have a far greater effect on sales than any DRM scheme ever would.
    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:More to worry about than that by darkzeroman · · Score: 1

      A wise decision would be to forgo the DRM altogether, and apply the savings to reducing the retail price of the games. I guarantee that will have a far greater effect on sales than any DRM scheme ever would. And I love it when people start guaranteeing how the market will perform. First of all this "guarantee" doesn't even take into account any kind of data/figures/costs, BUT NO FOLKS, HE CAN GUARANTEE IT.
    2. Re:More to worry about than that by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

      Sigh.

      Sorry I failed to meet your rigorous standards for slashdot commenting. Can I at least get credit for spelling everything correctly?

      Then you and I can move on without discussing the lack of evidence that copy-protection has ever resulted in increased sales for any product.

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    3. Re:More to worry about than that by darkzeroman · · Score: 1

      But isn't evidence something that is absolutely necessary, especially for this? When you are trying to show increased sales for DRM vs non-DRM? We can talk all day about how things "should" work, or how we "think" it should work, but what good is that if there is no evidence to prove it? I can hardly constitute myself as evidence, but I can say one experience. A few years ago I wished to play a game that had online multiplayer, however, an unique serial key was needed to play online. So I went out and bought the game. There, the sale of the game just increased by one. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one since there are many people still playing on the servers.

    4. Re:More to worry about than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Can I at least get credit for spelling everything correctly?

      Not quite. In the context you used you should have written affect, not effect.

    5. Re:More to worry about than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, he was right with effect, actually...

    6. Re:More to worry about than that by stupidflanders · · Score: 1

      reducing the retail price of the games Surely, you jest! (Don't call me Shirley... etc.)
    7. Re:More to worry about than that by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

      Your example isn't copy-protection, it's offering an extra service to paying customers. In that sense, the pirated version of the game is an advertisement for the retail product (much like mix-tapes worked for the music industry).

      In this case, we're talking about a game that will not run if it can't get in touch with the verification server (whether you paid for it or not).

      Now, from prior experience, there will be a hacked version that doesn't require verification shortly after release. So the copy-protection fails and EA ends up with the situation you describe in your post. People playing the pirated game want to take advantage of the online features and then go out and buy the game.

      And, also from prior experience, there are going to be people who did buy the game, but for whatever reason can't get verified. Those people are going to return the defective game and get their money back. And they'll likely never buy another game that relies on verification (remember the copy-protected CDs that didn't play in computers or car-stereos?).

      So the question is, why bother with the copy-protection when the scenario you describe adds value to the product and is less intrusive, easier to implement, and more effective at driving sales?

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  18. spore (pictured) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spore is some shitty joystick from the nineties?

    fuck man I thought it was a computer game

  19. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, more like reacting to bad publicity. Sort of like what our elected officials do. Float a trial balloon and then act according to the poll results.

  20. Welcome to the Slashdot Spank by Greymoon · · Score: 0

    I have to ask why someone at EA thought this would be a good idea. Did they think someone would buy the game, install then validate, and THEN install a pirated version? This has to be the idea of some dimwit trying to make a name for himself within the company. Welcome to the Slashdot Spank, EA and Mr. Dimwitty.

  21. This happen to me once.... by Itninja · · Score: 1

    One time I suffered from loose spore. There was a mass effect then too. Not a pretty sight.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  22. Trust EA to have class? Trust by Morromist · · Score: 1

    I too hesitate to buy such games even though I have constant internet access.

    The reason:

    Steam always messes up, tells me I don't have Counterstrike and I have to reboot to get it to work.
    If something as seemingly well designed as Steam doesn't work very well I suspect EAs version will be a nightmare.
    Its hard enough for EA to make anything right in my experience and I would be very cautious even if Blizzard did this.

    Also it sets a dreadful precedent for games requiring internet.

    And finally it wont stop the pirates, probably not even a little bit.

    Its worthless in the first place, annoying in the second, broken in the third, and fourthly and lastly its evil.

    1. Re:Trust EA to have class? Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing stops the pirates yarrr!

    2. Re:Trust EA to have class? Trust by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      If something as seemingly well designed as Steam doesn't work very well


      "Seemingly well designed"?

      Windows have been a multiuser system for more than a decade (and for the last 7 years, multiuser have been the default configuration). Still Steam does not know how to keep user info separated when more than one user are using the same machine, meaning that the login dialog will use the name of the last user logged in from any account on that PC.

      Perhaps this was considered good design 10 years ago. Today it is incompetent design.
  23. Not loosened enough... by Anonymous+Daredevil · · Score: 1

    I'm glad they dropped the 10-day-phone-home, but really, this DRM is still bad. It sounds like the same system BioShock used, and that was bad. In fact, it's even worse because you only get 3 computers instead of 5.

    It's a 3 computer install limit based on a hardware profile of your computer. If you install a new video card you need to reactivate the game using up your 2nd slot unless you remembered to uninstall the game first, or use the revocation tool if they even have one.

    We don't want this hassle.

    1. Re:Not loosened enough... by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Lighten up! Bioshock only took a month to crack. Now we know what's coming, so I bet Spore will get cracked within a week. Admit it, you crack all your games anyway, if only to get rid of the stupid CD check.

  24. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by Moridineas · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Spore looks to be one of the bloodiest games of the season!

  25. It's still bad, even if it's a little better by Mark+McGann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the things about being god awful bad at something is you can improve a lot and still stink.

    The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game (although you can call EA tech support and ask for more, no guarantee though). I have many games that have existed on more than three of my personal computers. Just glancing at my shelf I see 1830, Star Fleet Command, Transport Tycoon, Starcraft, Rome Total War and the list goes on. I don't want to have to beg tech support every time I upgrade my game machine, many of these companies don't even exist anymore.

    The fact of the matter is that DRM that limits the total number of times you can install the game is unacceptable. They may have fixed other problems with the DRM, but this issue remains.

    1. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by IKnwThePiecesFt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think a good compromise for this would be if they limited installs within a given period of time. Like three within a month. That would massively curb a cd key being shared online in a large pirate ring but would effect very few customers.

    2. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by el_chupanegre · · Score: 1

      It's precisely because of this that I don't activate Windows properly, even though all of my copies are completely legal (get them through my university for free)

      I do a lot of development work and keep alot of VMs, which get trashed quite often and started again. If I had to properly activate each one, I'd soon run out of activation runs

      This actually forces me to try to circumvent it, and drives the number of people who are willing to provide ways to circumvent it, which plays right into the pirates' hands.

      Arbitrary install limits and 'CD in the drive to play' are completely ridiculous, and the evidence is all around us in a thriving 'crack' scene.

      The fact that these cracks then make it immeasurably easier for pirates only goes to show that you can hurt your own sales by forcing this stuff on your paying customers. Once your average joe has seen how easy it is to circumvent this stuff, they'd feel much more confident of getting away with pirating it.

    3. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I read the title I was thinking "great I will buy Spore now". But only three installs? No thanks, maybe if it was on PS3, but I reinstall/upgrade my PC/Mac way too much, I've been burned by install limits in the past, looks like I will be passing on Spore. Well at least till the crackers fix it.

      Will Wright really seems to have his shit together, I'm surprised he is letting EA experiment with his baby like this.

    4. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by Mascot · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I was unlucky enough to not realize Bioshock did this sort of thing until past release date, or I would've cancelled my preorder.

      Getting rid of the 10 day idiocy was pretty much a given. But the deal breaker is still in place for me. Hardware lock-in.

      At least this time I know about it in advance and can indeed vote with my wallet.

    5. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by Mascot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until they turn off the activation server. And eventually, they will.

      This has bitten consumers in the ass when it comes to music, don't let it get a foothold in gaming.

    6. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      If downloadable content is such a big part of the game, why do they need install activation anyway? Treat it like a MMOG - create an account, use the account key that comes with game, ban accounts that get shared.

      Pirates are going to crack the install activation eventually, but an account system is completely under their control, and it's far less onerous (people create accounts for trivial things on teh Intarweb all the time).

    7. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would make sense. (Again, NO DRM AT ALL would make the most sense, but that is a fairer compromise).

      Is the 3-installs thing just for Mass Effect or Spore as well? If I am limited to 3 installs then I'm pretty sure I won't buy it. Limited installs is one of the most serious defects in a product. Far far worse than phoning home every 10 days.

    8. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Out of interest, I wonder where they place that information.
      If it's on the box in big bright letters, then I'm simply not buying.
      If it's inside the box (or on an EULA click through), then things get more interesting.
      I'd be likely to buy it if on EULA (using credit card, for insurance purposes), then return it to the store as not fit for purpose. I know most stores don't allow returns, but with the weight of a credit card company behind you, things get more interesting.
      Personally, I'd relish the fight on something like this; the cost of the game is an irrelevance, but actually forcing either the publisher (EA), or whatever shop I purchased it from (preferably one I'm not too happy with, as it may cause them considerable hassle) to accept a return would be a nice little win.
      When one person manages to do this, it's a minor irritation to a store, and an unnoticable blip in the publisher's books.
      When a few thousand people do this, it starts to hit the bottom line (restock at the stores, stores sending the boxes back to the publisher, publisher trying to work out what to do with all the stuff coming back in, and someone having to pay for transportation costs).
      What they're trying to do with DRM is put all the problems squarely on the purchaser of a game. It doesn't work, then you have to rely on the company to graciously allow you to use what you've paid for. If they don't play ball, you're out of luck. If it stops working by one of their artificial constraints, then again, you have to rely on them being magnanimous. Otherwise, out of luck.
      Now, if you buy it, say it's unacceptable, and sort out a return via your credit card company, they'll suddenly find that this problem is theirs.
      We can post online, and grumble, and they still hold the reins. Once the problem becomes theirs, then they really have to do something about it.
      I believe this kind of thing happened a little with the Windows Tax refunds some people obtained. Maybe it's time to extend that to causing pain for the publishers of games?
      And before all the obligatory rants come about that I'm pro pirate, and only after the free ride.. I always pay for what I obtain (yes, even the occasional Linux Distro). I just like to have a fair contract.
      The argument FOR DRM is that it protects them from Copyright Infringement (which is not theft, no matter how it's spun. Legally, and ethically, it's Copyright Infringement. It's not good, and it's not clever, but it's not theft). Now, the "remedy" that is DRM, when it messes up, can cause a perfectly valid game to stop working.
      Now this DOES deprive someone of something they've paid for, by design. Which interestingly falls square in the middle of the definition of theft.
      So, when you look at that, the companies are trying to cure something that isn't theft (but perhaps a close cousin) in their attempt to get zero Copyright Infringements by deciding it's ok to have their guardian system steal from a valid purchaser.
      Behind you 100% that this DRM laden world is unacceptable, and honestly, it's making me cranky enough to actually start doing something to rebel against it properly (not just from the armchair).

    9. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game (although you can call EA tech support and ask for more, no guarantee though). Yeah. When I saw the headline, I was hopeful that maybe it would now be okay to buy Spore or Mass Effect; but, nope. Any kind of remote activation is a complete non-starter for me. Once I buy the game, I want to take it home and be able to play it without having to worry about any kind of activation.

      Sorry, EA. You've still lost two sales until you completely remove this DRM nonsense. And no, I will not be pirating the games.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    10. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. Fuck ANY form of DRM on my games. I've bought a few things through Steam, but I've been reconsidering the wisdom of that decision lately. I don't want to PAY somebody for a product that I then have to ask them for permission to install it when I get home, then have to ask for permission every 4th time I install it.

      I paid for it, it's mine. Nowhere in copyright law does it say what I do after the sale is any of your fucking business.

    11. Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better by Mascot · · Score: 1

      In fairness to Steam, the *only* game I'm aware of that has a limit on amount of installations, is Bioshock. And that wasn't Valve's idea.

      It doesn't eliminate the fact that you need Steam installed and logged in, or logged in then put in offline mode I guess, to get to your games (even if you have a local backup created through Steam). But at least it's not actively designed to hamstring you other than as a byproduct of it being an online games distribution platform.

      I'm more partial to Stardock's approach. Buy it in a store? No problem, install it when offline if you like. Want access to updates? You have to go online and authenticate. If you buy online though, Stardock has the same weakness. They should let us download an ISO of the unprotected version for safekeeping. Yes, you can get it from other sources and don't have to rely on a crack, but it's still a detractor.

  26. MIA by Whiteox · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I know I'm missing something here. Whatever brain cells I have left aren't firing properly, BUT:
    WTF are US troops playing video games on? Laptops?
    Pay a few $ at an Iraqi internet cafe?
    Also, what kind of minimal system requirement do these new EA games need to run and can military issue hardware cope with it all? Are they running XP or Vista or their own custom OS?
    The reason for why EA is doing this as reported seems to be a con. Just doesn't make sense

    Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces ???
    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    1. Re:MIA by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, laptops. And it's not military issue hardware. Soldiers are allowed personal possessions. A lot of soldiers these days choose to bring their own computer to give them some entertainment in their off hours. In this respect they're little different than you or I, except that their housing is provided by their employer and often doesn't come with net access, or with extremely limited access.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:MIA by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Also, what kind of minimal system requirement do these new EA games need to run and can military issue hardware cope with it all?
      Who said anything about military hardware? Many troops have their own personal machines which they're allowed to take when they deploy overseas.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    3. Re:MIA by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      Deployed overseas in the late '80s, I brought my C-64. It literally ran 24 hours A day, Gunship and Defender of the Crown. We worked shifts and hot-bunked the system, I.E when I got off to start my shift, one of my roommates would get on to start playing. People even played it when I slept. Nothing like dodging ZSU-23 flak at 50 feet while launching Hellfires at a squad of T-72 tanks.

      My sister was in Desert Storm. An original Gameboy was very well used.

      Yes, US troops are some of the biggest gamers, especially those deployed overseas.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    4. Re:MIA by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Great stuff!
      Mind you, I played WIZBALL on a C64 for months...
      But seriously, all of this is new to me. I keep thinking that you guys play table tennis in a tent somewhere in the desert between bullets. I suppose that's old school thinking.
      Thanks for the enlightenment.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    5. Re:MIA by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Yes, laptops.
      Actually, if you track deal sites, Dell frequently has really good deals for laptops with decent video cards sold under the AAFES (armed forces something or other) program.
      A few other laptop makers also offer something similar.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  27. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by rts008 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fuck You, fuck Jesus,fuck EA, and fuck the White Mule You Rode In On!
    Nothing in your reply has anything to do with the subject.

    The mention of soldiers in Iraq is nothing but a smoke screen for your own flamebait ideals.
    The US soldiers are only dealing with the shit job they were assigned, nothing more, nothing less. Most would rather be home with their families, not sent into a hostile environment to further our Gov't.'s goals.

    It is a fact that they are there, and if you would talk to some of them, you would understand that most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job, and some of it is appreciated by the Iraq people. (not all, but some)

    BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Is your job totally without fault or negative repercussions for the whole world? Do you live in a glass house without fear of thrown rocks?

    Seriously, WTF do YOU do for a living? WTF do you do except flame on /.?

    I assume from the 'jesus' and 'god' references that you are one of those fundamental christian nut-jobs. Forgive me if I am wrong. (you asshats DO believe in forgiveness don't you?)

    *disclaimer- I have just went from Kubuntu gutsty to hardy, and have not got my set up where I want it, so please excuse the puncuation and grammatical errors---but the content aand meaning still stands)

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  28. The real question is by Zerth · · Score: 1, Funny

    Who in the DOD with a few stars on his shoulder called up EA and said

    "I like this game very much and I'd really hate it if a B-52 was to accidently drop "training ordnance" whilst over your HQ because I was angsting over a save lost because the game failed to contact the mothership after some terrorists took out a sat-dish."

  29. Since You Insist, I'll Stop Beating My Wife by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    The fact that because of outside pressure EA has changed their mind about constantly invading users' computers means nothing. You can count on a company that has this mindset to do whatever it thinks it can get away with to maximize its profits. Considerations like common decency or respect for the customer just aren't part of its world view.

    I'm not advocating a boycott or anything, but I would strongly suggest that a common sense approach to any dealings you have with EA is to treat them as you would a poisonous insect: flashy and attractive, but if you're going to play with it, keep a good grip on the tweezers.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Since You Insist, I'll Stop Beating My Wife by mechapants · · Score: 1

      All they did to change this is to have the game check for updates everytime you run it.......probably

  30. This is blowing my mind by sweatyboatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assuming that you both want to play this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it? The DRM is meant to prevent people from pirating the game, but he's going to pirate the game to avoid the DRM, which justifies EA's use of DRM, even though without the DRM he would buy the game.

    Actually, you know, that's probably exactly how the execs over at EA think.
    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  31. This is much worse by Sigvatr · · Score: 1

    I think Spore is intended to download new content more often than every 10 days. I think one of the ideas behind the game is that you can encounter other people's creations all over the joint without having to go out of your way to download them. Which means EA will be snooping around in your computer more like a few days a day.

    1. Re:This is much worse by Mascot · · Score: 1

      No, it means that in order to download content your copy of the game has to prove it's legit. That, isolated, I think is perfectly fine. It offers the legit customers something the pirates do not get, automatic online content download.

      The huge positive about this, of course, is that if you're offline for 10+ days you no longer lose your ability to play the game. So this is definitely a change for the better.

      But for me, it's still a no go. I try very hard to avoid buying products that ties itself to a specific device. There are a couple of exceptions but Spore and ME won't be.

  32. mod parent up by CamoCoatJoe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I think a good compromise for this would be if they limited installs within a given period of time. Like three within a month. That would massively curb a cd key being shared online in a large pirate ring but would effect very few customers.
    --
    This is not a signature.
    1. Re:mod parent up by CamoCoatJoe · · Score: 1

      Why did I get modded down for that? GP was score 1 when I said that.

      --
      This is not a signature.
  33. Next up... by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Now can there be some way to get the armed forces to deal with some of EA's slave-labor policies?

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Next up... by night_flyer · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least the "slaves" at EA have a choice as to whether they work there or not... Im more concerned about the real slaves, and children building all the gizmos and other crap we get from China...

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  34. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know what the GP does for a living, but I'm active duty Navy in the submarine force. We go underwater in a nice enclosed space for months at a time, away and largely out of contact with our families (I'm married), something you might consider a bit on the arduous side compared to most civilian employment.

    I also know a lot of people from other service branches, from various backgrounds with varying perspectives on the war. Of course most of those soliders would "rather be home with their families" as opposed to dealing with a hostile combat environment every day. That said, those same soldiers are proud to be serving their nation (the "government" you speak of in your post), and have a job where they voluntarily agreed to accept and execute whatever orders are deemed necessary by those in command. That includes the Commander in Chief.

    Just some perspective from a Sailor.

  35. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT.HTH.HAND.

  36. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

    most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job

    That's what Eichmann said, too.

  37. Re:Who cares? by palegray.net · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was in the top 5% of my graduating class, and was a professional software developer for several years before joining the Navy. Kinda messes up your worldview, huh? You're an idiot.

  38. Off Topic: military in Iraq by TeXMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US soldiers are only dealing with the shit job they were assigned, nothing more, nothing less. Most would rather be home with their families, not sent into a hostile environment to further our Gov't.'s goals.

    It is a fact that they are there, and if you would talk to some of them, you would understand that most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job, and some of it is appreciated by the Iraq people. (not all, but some)

    It is a fact that they are there, and if you would talk to some of them, you would understand that most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job, and some of it is appreciated by the Iraq people. (not all, but some)

    A solider can refuse to go to combat. It's called desertion and punished by military law, and it takes much more courage than just obeying order, but it shows consistency in hir ethics, assuming (s)he refuses to serve because (s)he disagree with the motives of the war and not just because to chicken out of danger.

    "Obeying orders" is never a valid excuse for doing something unethical or illegal. It doesn't relieve the wrongdoer of responsibility.

    BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Is your job totally without fault or negative repercussions for the whole world? Do you live in a glass house without fear of thrown rocks?
    I'm not the OP and FWIW: I'm a mathematician and I worked in my last two years for a company that produces prostheses. My work for the next couple of years will be used to predict eruptions and reduce their threat. Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the message.
    --
    "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    1. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by rts008 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You may be a mathematician, but you need to go back and learn some spelling and grammar if you want to get whatever it is you are trying to say out.

      WTF is 'hir'?
      Also, it is only YOUR judgment that something unethical or illegal is happening with ALL of our soldiers.
      Some...maybe, blanket accusation of 'all', uhm, no.
      That's the price you pay by using HUMAN BEINGS for soldiers. It has been a known factor that people will be people for many centuries.
      Nice move to try and take human nature out of your mathematician's equation, though!

      And as FWIW, ahh...nothing actually except in your own little narrow world.
      Have a nice day! :-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    2. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may be a mathematician, but you need to go back and learn some spelling and grammar if you want to get whatever it is you are trying to say out. WTF is 'hir'?

      It's a gender-neutral pronoun. How can you be unaware of such things in this day and age? You might think anyone who uses them is a wanker (I do) but you should at least be aware that they exist. I mean, what year is this? How long have you been living under a rock? How long have you had internet access?

      Also, it is only YOUR judgment that something unethical or illegal is happening with ALL of our soldiers.

      The military is made up of its members, the military is executing illegal actions, every member of the military has a responsibility not to support illegal actions, therefore every member of the military is involved in illegal actions.

      The very structure of the military is such that you are not supposed to know (unless you need to know) what you are doing, which makes it that much more difficult. But that does not detract from my point, only from the soldier's ability to exercise judgment.

      That's the price you pay by using HUMAN BEINGS for soldiers. It has been a known factor that people will be people for many centuries.

      Actually, it's the price you pay for having human beings in charge. Orders come from above.

      Since we actively brainwash inductees to make them more likely to follow orders, it's hard to blame this on human nature.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US soldiers are only dealing with the shit job they were assigned, nothing more, nothing less. Most would rather be home with their families, not sent into a hostile environment to further our Gov't.'s goals.

      It is a fact that they are there, and if you would talk to some of them, you would understand that most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job, and some of it is appreciated by the Iraq people. (not all, but some)

      It is a fact that they are there, and if you would talk to some of them, you would understand that most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job, and some of it is appreciated by the Iraq people. (not all, but some)



      A solider can refuse to go to combat. It's called desertion and punished by military law, and it takes much more courage than just obeying order, but it shows consistency in hir ethics, assuming (s)he refuses to serve because (s)he disagree with the motives of the war and not just because to chicken out of danger.

      "Obeying orders" is never a valid excuse for doing something unethical or illegal. It doesn't relieve the wrongdoer of responsibility.

      BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Is your job totally without fault or negative repercussions for the whole world? Do you live in a glass house without fear of thrown rocks?


      I'm not the OP and FWIW: I'm a mathematician and I worked in my last two years for a company that produces prostheses. My work for the next couple of years will be used to predict eruptions and reduce their threat.

      Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the message. Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about.

      Refusing to to go combat is NOT desertion, desertion is when you go UA(unauthorized absence) for more than 30 days and don't come back.

      And refusing to go to combat shows nothing more than cowardace in my opinion, considering to be in a situation where you can be sent into combat you first have to have volunteered to join the military, and second have to have selected a combat MOS(mission of service). Nobody is getting kidnapped from their nice soft beds and trained to kill at secret republican indoctrination camps then thrust into combat. And even if you DID somehow wind up in a unit that was deploying to a combat zone in a combat MOS, refusing to go will most likely net you a "general under other than honorable conditions" discharge and thats about it.

      And on the subject of obeying orders, if a order is given which is not lawful(hence the often used term, "lawful orders"), you don't have to obey it.

      If you think we are over there killing babies and carpet bombing then you watch to much TV my friend. We try goddamn hard to do the right thing at a sacrifice than you could ever understand, yet for some reason people like yourself seem to feel that you have some deep insight into a world that you have only ever seen in bullshit Oliver Stone movies.

      Oh yea, if you haven't figured it out I'm a active duty Marine with some free time this morning.
    4. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      "We try goddamn hard to do the right thing at a sacrifice than you could ever understand" should be "We try goddamn hard to do the right thing at a sacrifice thaT you could Never understand" Sorry about that, I should have logged in.

    5. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, I should have taken the moral highground and thrown my wife and two kids into poverty. Ideals are really nice when you're not starving on the street.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    6. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      WTF is 'hir'?

      It's a gender-neutral pronoun. How can you be unaware of such things in this day and age? You might think anyone who uses them is a wanker (I do) but you should at least be aware that they exist. I mean, what year is this? How long have you been living under a rock? How long have you had internet access?

      It's certainly the first time I've ever seen it. Must not be too common around hir.

    7. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by TehDuffman · · Score: 1

      The military is made up of its members, the military is executing illegal actions, every member of the military has a responsibility not to support illegal actions, therefore every member of the military is involved in illegal actions.

      The very structure of the military is such that you are not supposed to know (unless you need to know) what you are doing, which makes it that much more difficult. But that does not detract from my point, only from the soldier's ability to exercise judgment. I laugh at people like you who haven't served in the military but claim to be an expert on it. I have been a Marines for 3 years, I have been all over the world and am currently typing this from a foreign country. So i do believe that i have the expertise to talk on this subject.

      Not once in my career have i recived an order that i thought was illegal or against my moral beliefs. Not once have i given one of those orders either. I know it might be hard to believe but we do not go out and look to kill people for no reason. We do not care about oil or gold. That is not why we fight. We fight for the Marine next to us.

      We are not this killing machine that you probably think we are. At a moments notice we would go into Burma right now and help to save those people, if they let us in. I have friends that when to Pakistan and pulled their dead out the mud after they had massive mud slides. Friends that were all over SE Asia after the tsunami of 2004. We help more people in a year that most aid agencies do.

      We are not killers. We are not evil. And please dont speak on something you seem to have no idea what you are talking about... brainwashing my ass.
    8. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by servognome · · Score: 1

      A solider can refuse to go to combat. It's called desertion and punished by military law, and it takes much more courage than just obeying order, but it shows consistency in hir ethics, assuming (s)he refuses to serve because (s)he disagree with the motives of the war and not just because to chicken out of danger.
      "Obeying orders" is never a valid excuse for doing something unethical or illegal. It doesn't relieve the wrongdoer of responsibility.
      You are creating the false dichotomy that soldiers either agree with the war or see it as immoral, when there are many different perspectives on the subject. Some may see the initial invasion as "wrong," but see it as the US's responsibility to remain and prevent a civil war, or instability that could lead to a greater threat to security.
      In a democratic society we often find ourselves in situations where our personal opinions are not shared with the rest of society. Yes it does take a lot of courage to break the law and stay true to ones beliefs, but at the same time such hardline approaches are also detrimental to stability in the face of disagreeing views. Should half of the country withold taxes because the candidate they wanted wasn't elected or they don't agree with the Iraq war?
      I would expect a soldier to be able to desert/mutiny based on a specific order (eg execute civilians), I wouldn't expect a soldier to do the same based on a complex political situation where right and wrong is much more grey.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    9. Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm...hate to say this, but I've studied how cults brainwash, and I know the basic ideas behind the US Military's basic training.

      There are two principle differences. One, the techniques used in Basic are not applied to the core beliefs of the recruit, but primarily to his methods of thinking.

      Secondly, Basic doesn't last quite long enough to result in the shut-down of critical thinking skills in most cases, and when someone does end up being that susceptible (sp?), they're sent home rather than continue and wind up with a mindless drone.

      Other than that....it would really not be a misnomer to call basic training a mild form of brainwashing. A "brainrinse" if you will.

      In case you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about, here's a list of things cults do to cause people to change beliefs radically. Note that only SOME of these elements are needed.

      * Total isolation from the normal world
      * Sleep deprivation
      * Repetitive activities
      * Encouraging of regressive behavior, including a total reliance on authority figures
      * Restricted Diet, preferably low-protein if at all possible

      If all of these are present, some experts (which I am not) believe that it only takes 96 hours to completely alter someone's personal belief systems completely beyond recognition. The more that are missing, the longer it takes.

      Now, please understand, that in not all cases is the application of 'brainwashing' a necessarily bad thing. In a combat situation is not necessarily the time to be thinking for yourself on any topic you want, and the reshaping of behavior patterns these techniques are designed for will keep you alive in those kinds of situations. But it is what it is.

  39. Eh, let's get one thing straight by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Eh, let's get one thing straight about Eichmann, since his name pops up in a lot of talks about what people do when ordered, including the "yot too are no better than Eichmann" Milgram bullshit spin.

    From the same Wikipedia page:

    By 1945, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler had ordered Jewish extermination halted and evidence of the Final Solution destroyed. Eichmann was appalled by Himmler's turnabout, and continued his work in Hungary against official orders. Eichmann was also working to avoid being called up in the last ditch German military effort, since a year before he had been commissioned as a Reserve Untersturmführer in the Waffen-SS and was now being ordered to active combat duty.


    Eichmann actively disobeyed direct orders, and kept hunting Jews after he was explicitly ordered to stop. He kept rounding them up and sending them to some camps which were being dismantled or didn't exist any more, and generally didn't want the fruit of his work any more.

    Refusing to show up when called to his division to go to the front, actually makes him a deserter too.

    He pretended to have an official job that he didn't actually have any more, and commandeered troops and resources that just weren't his any more. Just because he wanted to hunt more Jews. And obviously he wasn't too afraid of the consequences for _that_.

    He was _appalled_ at the decision to stop exterminating Jews.

    So let's put to rest the idea that he was just following orders, like everyone else. That guy didn't just continue his work when no longer asked to, he actually continued it _againt_ direct orders to stop. He also had no trouble deserting when he no longer liked the orders he was given. So, you know, why didn't he do it before, then?

    There's a _world_ of difference between (A) doing what you're ordered and coaxed, like in Milgram's experiment, or out of fear of a court-martial, like many soldiers do, and (B) what Adolf Eichmann did. Past a point, he actually acted against the orders and laws, and was no more than a common (mass) murderer.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  40. Will they patch when they turn off activation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or will the game stop working when you install after they stop their servers?

    If that happens, can you ask for your money back (after all, you only licensed your money to them: they are expressly promissory notes!)?

  41. Vitriol laden post got in the way here..... by rts008 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I sincerely apologize if I have offended an active duty US serviceman.
    "I also know a lot of people from other service branches, from various backgrounds with varying perspectives on the war."

    Which war?
    In the end they are all the same old shit. War on Drugs, War on Pedophiles, War on anyone who does not agree with US, War on Iraq (what was that about again?), War on whatever.

    But, swabbies? Huh! While you were on yer 'boat', (Arrghhh!)
    I spent 3 1/2 years active in the US Army in W.Berlin in the late 1970's, to early 1980's providing security for E.German defectors to skip across the borders to OUR side. (3rd Army,75th Rangers, Airborne-HooRah!, 10th Special Forces Group, team leader of Team #8....*look at my UID: RTS008-my initials plus my lucky 'James Bond' 00# and team #8!!!)

    I hear you: "Just some perspective from a Sailor."
    I have worked with you Swabbies and your SEALs, and I also am proud of my service to my country.
    I helped get a lot of scientists and politically important (at that time) persons to 'our' side back then.

    If it calms your mind, I have been awarded 3 Purple Hearts (too dumb to duck!) awards, the Distinguished Service Cross.....with clusters, and NONE of that on public record.
    I don't mind because I know what WE accomplished as a team.

    Most of what I did is still classified even though the Berlin Wall fell.
      That's okay, we know, and WE feel good about it. Nevermind the fact that most of us have had to move around the US to avoid all the bounty hunter death threats since then. (check out the STASI, and E German Border Guards)

    I had a 600,000 DM price on my head, and 400,000 DM price on any of my team mates capture back when.

    Yeaah, I was committed to 'doing my duty', and I did it well. Actually too good by your standards, and yes, it was in the late 1970's to early 1980's, probably before your time. I still have the #4 slot on all-time highest confirmed kills by any US sniper in the books.(damn you Carlos Hathcock with 97 confirmed!!!)

    I also did it out of patriotism and sense of duty...at the time, there was no draft... I VOLUNTEERED, as did ALL of my team-mates.

    I was proud to have served then, and am still proud I did. So I have to wonder what your point is?

    Okay, I've been drinking and have my offensive side in control...correct me if I go too far, but...

    I guess you feel complacent and superior cruising around in your sub, able to lash out and proclaim superior judgment on the rest of the world? WTF?!?!?

    Come to shore, get out of your nice little protected world (your sub), and I'll be glad to give you a touch of reality and a good old fashioned bosun's style asski9cjing to wake you up.

    I was just sick and tired of the USA soldiers being on the shit end of the posts here. Nothing more, but now my dander is up. Sorry you were on the reception committee.
    I am also sick and tired of the 'War on *' Whatever!
    I am a patriot, I served my time (volunteered), and love my Country (USA), but
    BTW, loved partying with the Aussie SF's, they know how to wreck/party a belligerent port of call! I miss y'all, mates!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  42. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by rts008 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Pardon my lack of eloquence, but fsck you, and the white mule you rode in on.
    Unless you've been there, you cannot understand.
    No other reply is needed here.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  43. Horse meat is great by patio11 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't knock it until you've tried it. Cooked it is really quite similar to a very lean cut of beef, but raw and with just a dash of soy sauce it is really, really good.

    Please don't all go PETA (OMG think of the ponies!) at once. They're dumber than pigs and pigs are delicious, too.

    1. Re:Horse meat is great by soupforare · · Score: 1

      Pigs? They're dumber than cows.
      OTOH, I might just know exceptionally bright bovines.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    2. Re:Horse meat is great by onion_joe · · Score: 1

      Don't knock it until you've tried it. Cooked it is really quite similar to a very lean cut of beef, but raw and with just a dash of soy sauce it is really, really good. Please don't all go PETA (OMG think of the ponies!) at once. They're dumber than pigs and pigs are delicious, too.

      Yeah, sure, but can you ride a pig?

      On second thought, don't answer that.

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
  44. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    What's a mule got to do with anything?

  45. In 10 years by jonfr · · Score: 1

    Those EA executives out there. I have a good question.

    What if I want to play Spore in say 10 years time ? (I do like to play old games) Can I be 100% sure that I can activate it then. EA is not exactly known for supporting there games for a long time.

    1. Re:In 10 years by Huntr · · Score: 1

      The Mass Effect rep (can't remember who he was, maybe a developer) addressed that question in the thread linked in the previous /. article, stating that by that time, he would anticipate the activation scheme being removed in a (far in the) future patch or a dedicated server still running at that time. Take that for what its worth.

  46. Thank goodness & the Armed Forces by das3cr · · Score: 1

    I have looked forward to Spore for a long time but the DRM scheme was a deal breaker for me. Now, it's game on again!

    --
    Hurricane Island Outward Bound
    OB
  47. A well-known scheme by apt-get+moo · · Score: 1

    1. Search for 'problems' which are to be addressed
    2. Announce drastic counter-measures which won't help these problems much
    3. Wait for publicity backlash
    4. Calm the crowd by saying the measures you're about to take won't be that bad
    5. ???
    6. PROFIT!

    If it works for getting laws passed, it will also work for PR.

    --
    ...."Have you mooed today?"...
  48. Re:Who cares? by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

    You want to kill people for a living?
    Knock yourself out.
    But dont ask me to care.
    This is a bizarre worldview - not caring whether people kill other people for a living?
  49. Still needs the internet to install it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am an active duty Marine and there is a decent chance I'll be in Afghanistan and without a internet connection when this comes out. I was going to have it mailed out to me but if it requires a internet connection for installation, well, then you can forget about periodic checks, I can't even install the thing.

  50. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Of course most of those soliders would "rather be home with their families" as opposed to dealing with a hostile combat environment every day. That said, those same soldiers are proud to be serving their nation (the "government" you speak of in your post), and have a job where they voluntarily agreed to accept and execute whatever orders are deemed necessary by those in command. That includes the Commander in Chief.

    Soldiers who would rather be home with their families should not have become soldiers to support the tyranny of those in control of our government.

    Serving your government is not serving your nation. If you want to provide for the national defense, you can join the guard. Oh wait, we're using them to fight an illegal war on foreign soil, too.

    You did not agree to accept and obey unethical orders. The point of using humans and not just bombing everything into dust is that they are supposed to be capable of making the distinction.

    Let me provide an alternate perspective; the majority of our military actions are either unwanted, unnecessary, or in search of profit. You can see this throughout history; for instance, something like half of our early naval bombardments were executed in order to force people to sell to the United Fruit Company, or to protect some other commercial interest. We prop up one dictator, assassinate another. The stupid kids who joined up to get money for college are the reason why we are able to project power all over the globe - we have a standing military made up of idiots, and we are not afraid to use it.

    No, I am not saying that everyone in the military is stupid. Obviously, that would be an extremely precarious point on which to stand. What I am saying is that it's the stupidity inherent in believing that you're serving your best interests or the nation's best interests by joining a military which has formerly shot protesting veterans encamped on the white house lawn and currently is doing its best to avoid paying what it owes to soldiers returning from the middle east - which really isn't much different.

    My father was a Marine, he signed up guaranteed air wing and ended up an air traffic controller. I have a niece in the navy right now, she just went in because she has no idea what to do with her life. I guess that's better than joining the air force, where a female recruit can expect to be raped at some point in her career - I'm not sure if the same would hold true in the navy or not.

    It should be abundantly clear to anyone by now that our military heritage is the result of powermongering. We'll never know if we could use diplomacy to solve our problems, because we're all too willing to start shooting.

    This plea goes out to all of you out there who have kids, or know kids, who are about to be of age to join the military: TEACH PEACE. There is a better way that bombing everyone into submission in the name of profit.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  51. So the military *is* good for something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thanks guys! ;)

  52. Unfounded MS bashing by Asmor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Yeah, I know, this is Slashdot and that's to be expected, but still.

    I'll end up having to reinstall it at least 3 times the first year due to Windows unreliability. Really, man? My last computer had Windows XP pre-installed on it, and that same install of XP lasted me for around 5 years, and that includes lots of monkeying around (such as changing the partition size with GPartEd, installing various Linux distros and Vista side-by-side, daily use with a reboot only when necessary, installing anything that seemed remotely interesting to me).

    Complaining about Windows's stability is like complaining that Linux is hard to install and has poor hardware support. Get with the times.
    1. Re:Unfounded MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am with the times Win XP is just as unstable now as it was when it was released. I still have to shut the computer down every day to make sure that it doesn't bloat all to hell. You can say what you want, but the reality is that a lot of people do experience that sort of trouble.

      And, if I'm not doing weekly maintenance on it, the performance degrades noticeably over embarrassingly short periods of time. As for driver support, I'd define any OS as having poor driver support if the device I'm needing or wanting to use isn't supported.

      Just because you've had better luck with drivers and updates than I have, does not negate the fact that on this hardware win does not run reliably over even months without needing a lot of work being involved.

    2. Re:Unfounded MS bashing by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      You should learn to use a computer.

      I've never had these kind of problems. Not in windows 2000, not in XP, not in vista, not in ubuntu.

      I guess I know how to build good computers or something.

  53. Too little too late by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

    Doesn't matter to me, I've already started my boycott of their products.

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  54. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by ElAurian · · Score: 1

    There are rules allowing US military folks (as well as those in most other western armies) to refuse to obey an illegal order. They may be court-martialled, but if they were right to disobey the order, they will not be punished.

    If someone in the Nazi regime didn't follow an order to kill an unarmed civilian in a train, they were themselves shot.

  55. Just an illusion by dupont54 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This "loosening" is just to make people accept, even praised, "online activation/harware tying", which is in my mind the worst kind of DRM for purchased content (though it is a perfect fit for renting).
    By accepting this DRM, you agree to have you ability to play a single player offline game controlled by an online server. There is no such thing as a one time only activation, as each time the system detect your computer has changed (which can be triggered by simply using a different windows account with crappy DRM), it will ask for activation again, eating your previous activation credit.
    Nothing guarantee the auth server will be there when you want to play. Even if it is there, nothing guarantee it will give you the right to play because of some "normal usage" rules implemented on it (and which can change over time). And don't expect too much competence and generosity from a consumer service, especially a few months after launch.
    The software, music and video industries are full of horror histories about activation servers going down or being simply dumb and rigid.

    1. Re:Just an illusion by brkello · · Score: 1

      Except Spore is meant to be played online even in its single player form so your argument really doesn't apply in that case.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    2. Re:Just an illusion by dupont54 · · Score: 1

      RTFP
      It was about single player offline game. If the whole interest of the game is based on being connected to the company's servers, then fine, they can do whatever they want in the meantime, as I'm already on their server. Still it should not be an online activation/hardware tying which should be used but a classic CD-Key check (to refuse blacklisted ones and multiple simultaneous connections).
      For Spore specifically, I don't know (and I no more care) if the feature will be the main interest of the game or just a gimmick. The only single player game I know which is really designed to be played only online is "Missing: since January" (aka "In Memoriam" in Europe).

  56. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by eikonos · · Score: 1

    That said, those same soldiers are proud to be serving their nation (the "government" you speak of in your post) (snip) Actually, the Nation is your friends and family and all the other people in the country. It's great that you're proud to serve and protect them. The government is a small group of people who control the nation. Unfortunately, the goals of the government are not always in the best interests of the people, so you should ask yourself if the orders you follow serve the people of the nation, not just the government.
  57. Solves nothing. 10 days wasn't the issue. by guidryp · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Well I now see the first step in the EA destruction of Bioware. I don't play many games but the majority of them have been Bioware starting with Original Baldurs Gate.

    This breaks a fundamental usage paradigm, it wasn't the 10 days, it was the remote authentication of any kind.

    I still play 10 year old games on occasion, something this would prohibit and I have loaned out my copies of BG/NWN that resulted in more people buying them.

    I will NOT buy a game that require an authentication servers to play standalone, because it is clearly evident that someday those servers will be decommissioned.

    A company can have so much cash they don't know what to do with it and still shutdown servers. Just look at the MSN music service.

    In short Bioware received the lions share of my gaming dollars in the past. In the future they will get none. Bravo EA, another company destroyed.

  58. From Experience... by Anubis333 · · Score: 1

    I used to feel the same way: Orwellian bullshit.

    I know a dev who made a PC only title last year, who also thought tech like this was intrusive and heavy-handed; they did not use it.

    They were cracked 6 days before release, and have held a top 3 spot (number of dlers/seeds) on bit torrent sites for games across all platforms for the past 6 months.

    Epic has also said a week or so ago that within weeks of UT3 launching, there were 40 million attempts to connect online to play with pirated keys. (I'm sure they weren't all unique)

    PC piracy is a serious issue. People say WoW shows us that you can make a buck and piracy is not an out to blame for your low sales, but let's all be honest, WoW is completely Orwellian, you play it online so they get away with server checks of course, but people have complained about their EULA before, it checks everything on your PC, has the right to delve into any file, any process, etc. People ignore this because they like WoW, and they don't want people cheating to ruin the experience.

    So many gamers throw their arms up at these oncoming security measures, but they are only necessary because so many gamers pirate PC games. At FMX last week, I heard a guy from MS at the 'Game Maker's Round Table' say that the Gears and Halo 2 PC versions did not even make back the money they cost to port. This is an interesting paradox that I think no one really comments on. Gamers need to understand that because of piracy, unless a game can connect to a server and make sure you paid for it (like WoW), PC games are not going to exist much longer. Except for quick ports of console titles, and maybe Peggle.

    1. Re:From Experience... by argent · · Score: 1

      I know a dev who made a PC only title last year, who also thought tech like this was intrusive and heavy-handed; they did not use it.

      I'm a dev who shipped one Amiga game, maybe 20 years ago, and the publisher had to recall it because the copy protection wasn't compatible with their floppy duplicating process. We'd specifically targeted the low level copiers... the Amiga equivalent of the Apple "nibble copiers", that most pirates used. We provided them scripts to do the duplication... but they used one of the copy protection busting tools we'd targeted to do their production run. Whoops.

      And ironically the scripts we provided them were able to crank out copies faster than their nibble-copiers, once they realized they really needed to use them. We missed the Christmas release, which basically wiped it out, because back then you had to make all your money back in the first few months... because cracks abounded, and games went out on pirate BBSes in no time. Even with out superior copy protection tricks.

      So this isn't new. Copy protection is a risk, and even improved copy protection won't protect you... because once ONE broken copy is out there you might as well not bother. You gotta live with it, limit the development time and costs based on what you're going to make back in the first sales peak. So you don't do as many mega-hit games like Spore, instead you shoot for more smaller and cheaper titles and concentrate on making them fun to play instead of depending on the special effects to sell them.

      If we were to do it again, I'd have shipped without any protection at all. We might have hit the peak a month before christmas, but we'd have actually HIT it... and we'd have been able to spend more time on the game and less on the copy protection. And maybe I'd have stuck to the games business instead of spending the next 20 years as a system administrator - surer money, that, if not as flashy.

    2. Re:From Experience... by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      It's a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation. Everyone says they'll buy games if copy protection is removed but nobody does. For the record, I immensely dislike any kind of "phone home" authentication except when it's a feature as in WoW but I also think that many people on here are intellectually dishonest. It's always been true that you can't get anything for nothing and once those hated gaming company have gone out of business there will simply be no one left to finance 100+ staff for 2 years to make games like Spore and ME. Same with hollywood and the music industry: you can only be fine with that if all you need is indy/freely produced content but if so why do you concern yourself with mainstream products in the first place?

      This particular DRM at least demonstrates how not to do it: the 3 times install limit and the requirement for inet access on installation will only bother regular customers and it will do very little to deter pirates. Steam has tought us this lesson: there are torrents for standalone HL2 and Portal out there.
      Copy protection must take an other route: hassle your customers as little as is humanly possible but inconvenience pirates much more. Maybe it's time the crypto hardware dongle made a come back?

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    3. Re:From Experience... by BigJClark · · Score: 1


      Well, that may be true enough, but I have to say in response, how much did it cost to port? Why does it take 3 years to develop and release a game? Why are the game spec's that high? I think they are doing it to themselves. I actually have a high-end system, and I chuckle to myself when people bitch about the cost of the PS3. My gfx card costs as much as a PS3. That being said, I'm not the norm.

      1) Until game studios start releasing games that run comfortable on mid range systems
      and
      2) Release on a dev schedule of under a year

      Yup, PC gaming will suffer

      I say suffer, because I still believe PC gaming to survive the current onslaught of console gaming. I still feel PC's to be the superior platform for FPS (purely for input) and simulation-type games. A future developer, along the lines of id, will recognize the void, and release the next doom.

      --

      Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
  59. Here's where the 10 day thing comes from by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 10-day thing is required. Here's where it comes from.

    BioShock released with an earlier version of this system; SecuROM with Product Activation. After outcry from people then, publisher 2K Games promised a "deactivation" tool (which isn't enough for me to rent their game, but I guess it was enough for some). The problem with this tool goes a little something like this:

    Step 1: Install BioShock
    Step 2: Activate BioShock. SecuROM server now thinks you have "n-1" activations left. Your game is activated, and BioShock will never phone home again.
    Step 3: Ghost/clone your hard drive image.
    Step 4: Deactivate BioShock. SecuROM server goes back up to "n" activations left. Your game is deactivated.
    Step 5: Restore your harddrive from the image you created in step 3. Now your game is activated again, but the server doesn't know that, and still thinks you have "n" activations left.

    This is obviously a bit of an onerous process to go through, but it isn't hard to imagine someone automating this process (or even just automating the important part; finding where the activation is stored on your drive, backing it up, and then restoring it after the deactivation process is finished updating the server).

    I strongly suspect the "phone home every 10 days" was an attempt to "fix" this. If 30 different machines are all phoning home every few days with the same key, then you know people are using this (or a similar technique) to pirate the game, so you can ban the key and kill all those installs. Without the phone home part, this activation scheme is essentially worthless.

    The CORRECT fix, of course, is to get rid of product activation, because it's stupid, invasive, and is pushing your formerly paying customers into circumventing your copy protection.

    1. Re:Here's where the 10 day thing comes from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If VMs could run games faster then both 10-day phonehome and Bioshock's method could easily be bypassed. Bioshock: install game, snapshot the VM, deactivate license, revert to snapshot and you should have your n licenses and an activate game. 10-day thing: create a VM and set its config to always start at a certain time. This means that 10 days would only elapse if you didn't power off for that long. If you want to turn time back, just power off and back on. Granted you can do this on physical hardware but it is much easier with a VM.

    2. Re:Here's where the 10 day thing comes from by brkello · · Score: 1

      It's funny reading Slashdot these days. Everyone wants to have no DRM...because it is punishing your customers. In the lawyer article a few postings down, everyone is talking about how it is ok to pirate games. Do you see why they want DRM? I can't blame game companies for wanting to do something. If they read Slashdot it would seem the general consensus is that pirating is a victimless crime. That would not give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    3. Re:Here's where the 10 day thing comes from by RomanesEuntDomus · · Score: 1

      I guess you've never heard of Stardock.

      They offer their games WITHOUT DRM, and offer a value service to anyone who buys their games in the form of automated patches/updates. You are even encouraged to make backups.

      They also happen to have done quite well. Sins of a Solar Empire has been in the top 10 list for quite a while.

  60. I'll still have to boycott Spore by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 1

    The game still has product activation. You're still only allowed to install it only three times, ever. Not interested.

  61. So how about they get paid for it? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    I was pleasantly surprised to hear this news.

    I read the forums on several sites and had to agree with most of the arguments. It was a bad idea right from the beginning and the customer base spoke up. And the publisher, surprisingly, responded in a positive manner. A collective sigh of relief was heard around the world.

    Now that everyone claimed that they would speak with their wallets and not buy the game if the DRM was put in place, I think its only fair that those same people actually do what they inferred by those statements and PAY for the games.

    You know what I am saying. Even you folks that were going to pirate it anyways should pony up and reward this company for actually basing decisions on customer comment.

    Hell, you might even get your moneys worth.

  62. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soldiers who would rather be home with their families should not have become soldiers to support the tyranny of those in control of our government.


    You really need a rectal craniectomy, and your father and niece would probably agree. Some tasks need to be done, despite the discomfort of the task. Those of us that believe that the US Military does good join and do what needs to be done, even if it means family separation.

  63. Been years since I bought EA games by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    A few years ago I bought two EA games that refused to play on any of my 6 PCs. Because I had bought them for my kids as Xmas presents more than 30 days prior to attempting to return them, the store refused to give ma refund. In New Zealand, these were over $100 each. Not trivial. (One was "Harry Potter Quidditch World Cup"). The EA web site simply told me to buy another CD drive. Hell, I only had 6 that didn't work with their game. I have not bought an EA game since. No point wasting money on games you can't play from a vendor that doesn't care.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  64. Hmm, well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, the only reason they're saying that they're changing it because of the armed forces is that it sounds a lot better than saying a lot of shut-in nerds were complaining.

  65. Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    You really need a rectal craniectomy, and your father and niece would probably agree. Some tasks need to be done, despite the discomfort of the task.

    Vietnam? didn't need to be done. This shit in the middle east? Definitely didn't need to be done like this, if at all. It's called responsibility. It's called a conscience.

    I've discussed this situation at length with my father and he agrees with my assertion that we could not and would not be acting in an illegal war without all the poor dumb kids who signed up because they felt like they were trapped and had no other option. He wishes that he had never signed up - and he never even had to see combat.

    My Niece is the child of an alcoholic, who is the child of my father. Like me, she lives (lived?) in a town where unemployment is over 15%.

    The US Military is never interested in just "doing good". We knew what Hitler was up to for years and did nothing; now our president is the grandson of the money behind the SS.

    "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

    The simple truth is that we are not involved in this war for justice, but only so that certain people can make money - and this conflict is hardly unique in this regard.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"