Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spore System Specs Released, Creature Creator Coming Soon

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the so-much-waiting dept.

Will Wright's long-awaited game, Spore, seems to be nearing completion, with a release slated for September. In anticipation of this release, EA has outlined the system requirements and will still be releasing their Creature Creator demo for experimentation on June 17th.

125 comments

  1. Don't Try To Make Humans... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... they just consume all your computer's resources.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    1. Re:Don't Try To Make Humans... by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kind of like Vista in that respect.

      --
      I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
    2. Re:Don't Try To Make Humans... by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually Vista is a result of early Spore beta testing... they put Windows ME in to the game and ran it in simulation mode for 7 years... Vista is what came out, though apparently there were several variations (Home, Professional, Business, Ultimate)

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  2. I did not know this was news. by kevmatic · · Score: 1

    I saw the system specs on EA's preorder site, http://eastore.ea.com/store/ea/DisplayProductDetailsPage/ProductID.91619200 , Monday. I thought I had merely missed them...

    Does Knowing this before everyone else make me cool?

    Anywho, they don't look as bad as I was thinking, and the fact that it supports onboard video with a dual-core CPU raises interesting questions about the engine.

    1. Re:I did not know this was news. by allanw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anywho, they don't look as bad as I was thinking, and the fact that it supports onboard video with a dual-core CPU raises interesting questions about the engine. It just means that the graphic engine goes from very low graphics to possibly high graphics.
    2. Re:I did not know this was news. by wagnerrp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      onboard video with a dual-core CPU The original Intel Mac Mini is the only single core Intel Mac. Since it did not have sufficient graphics to run this game, there are no single core Macs capable of running spore.
    3. Re:I did not know this was news. by howlingfrog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does knowing this before everyone else make me cool?

      This is Slashdot. We're geeks. That's how we define cool.

      --
      The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
    4. Re:I did not know this was news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not.

    5. Re:I did not know this was news. by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Which means the game has been sensibly designed. It always amazes when devs fuck that part of game design up. Lord of the Rings Online for example. On a system that can run WOW with all the gorgeous eye candy on, LOTRO looks like utter crap in comparison and can't run at full detail. I spent more time on my trial trying to get the game to run nicely. And even when it did, it had nasty stuttering (on multiple systems).

      Was worried when I clicked the link, but having read the specs, my six year old Dell can run Spore. Not very well probably, but can run it.

      My newer boxes should work great. Even my laptop.

      Really excited about this game. Look forward to the editor demo. (Be damned if I'm buying the editor when they release it. I can wait for the game for the full thing.)

      What with Spore coming out in some fashion on the iPhone too, could wind up as game of the year. (I mean legitimately. Not one of these that wins a random GOTY award.)

    6. Re:I did not know this was news. by @madeus · · Score: 1

      WoW has very basic graphics, and not really much of a benchmark (although it helps to have a health amount of VRAM). It's nothing like as demanding LoTR Online because the models are not as detailed and it's using *much* simpler and less demanding effects.

      LoTR ran very nicely @ 1920x1200 on my 2+ year old system (the one I was using when I played it was an AMD FX-57, 2 x 7900 GT, 2 GB RAM) and really had zero stuttering on mine at all. I don't think they fucked up the LoTR engine at all, it seems just fine (and handled dynamic loading and draw distance really well IMO - better than any game I've seen).

      In comparison, Age of Conan still has serious loading issues in major cities (it doesn't seem to pre-cache at all, and it doesn't cache all that well) even on a new system with 2 x 9600 GT's (although they seem to be aware of that and have announced a patch is coming).

      Tabula Rasa has constant low level streaming all the time - whenever you move your character in the world - resulting in mild stuttering regardless of system specs, resolution or quality level. It annoyed me so much I quit playing in the first month.

      Enemy Territory : Quake Wars seems to not to be all that smooth for some reason, regardless of resolution or quality level - not really acceptable for a twitch shooter IMO. The likes of the latest version of Unreal Tournament and Call of Duty 4 run just fine at high detail at 1920x1200 with FSAA and AF on the same system so am included to think there is just something up with ET:QW (which still seems less than smooth even at the lowest resolution and the lowest detail level).

    7. Re:I did not know this was news. by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, LOTRO's engine is pretty nifty. I really liked the game too. Were it not for the graphic engine issues I had I'd be a customer now. However the engine isn't as optimized as WOW it would appear. And the fact is even if WOW is less detailed, does it matter? I can't say I ever look at WOW and think "Man that looks crap". Blizz have always been good at writing engines that scale nicely IMO. Used to run WOW on a god awful laptop. Comparing LOTRO and WOW, WOW just looks much MUCH better than LOTRO. I did crank LOTRO up to maximum detail and it looked amazing, but I couldn't play it sadly as the FPS was in the low single figures. (Looked gorgeous though:))

      Not tried Age of Conan.

      Tabula Rasa... Much worse than LOTRO. Had lots of weird graphical glitches in it. There were other reasons I didn't buy the game. (Didn't bode well when the quest text was broken for the very first quest I found, telling me I needed to "collect 20 ????".) I liked it, but I felt it was a good six months away from being out of beta. (This was back in December or so.) I don't care what the packaging says:)

      Only other recent game I have that hits the hardware is The Orange Box, and the games runs astonishingly well, even on the six year old system I have. (That has what it had from the start in it, except an upgraded graphics card, which is massively hampered by the rest of system bottleneck.)

      One more thing about WOW: Running it on my laptop, NOTHING seems to make the laptop run hotter than that game. Most of the time I can touch the laptop etc... Run WOW for any length of time and the underneath gets uncomfortably hot. No other game does this that I've found. (Not had the laptop long so there may be others. LOTRO sure as hell didn't heat it up that much.)

    8. Re:I did not know this was news. by @madeus · · Score: 1

      And the fact is even if WOW is less detailed, does it matter? I can't say I ever look at WOW and think "Man that looks crap". Blizz have always been good at writing engines that scale nicely IMO Yeah, very true. I think they've played very well by not only coming up with a game that requires fairly modest specs (by MMO standards, at least) and still managing to pull off environments that look great and, as you say, never make you think "this looks like crap" - even years after release and without any graphics updates.

      (( I wish more developers would do what CCP did with EVE and refresh the graphics after a few years - frankly I think SOE would have been wise to have done that with the original EQ in order to keep and expand on the player base, rather than doing what they did and try and move everyone to EQ2, which I actually really liked more than WoW as far as the game mechanics went, but I think suffered because people went straight to WoW from EQ, or just decided to avoid SOE after they messed up the handling of SWG. ))

      LOTR was up for a harder job in not going for a slightly cartoony feel (which it was seems to work so well in WoW's favour) but I think given that it did really well of convincing a 'serious'/'credible' environment - at least when running in high detail. I wonder if it's very sensitive to some things (such as specific feature or chipset support, and if it doesn't play well with some cards).

      I'm not sure what developers are thinking when they release MMO engines that are clearly too bug ridden to be successful. It's hard for me to tell if they know it's crappy and will try and fix it later (as seems to be the case with AoC, and as CCP seem to have taken on board with regard to large battles in EVE), or the companies have no idea their products are defective (as seemed to be the case with SOE).

      Things like the constantly morphing terrain in SWG and it's lack of caching for items in the environment always bugged me about it and was enough to put me off. It would have played just fine WITHOUT any 'level of detail' on the terrain - it just made it look crappy and perform marginally worse, can't see why they thought that was a good idea. The lack of caching of even 'static' player owned objects meant I could turn around outside of town and 50 plus player owned buildings will all just vanish in front of my eyes (only to re-appear when I got within 150 yards, where they would remain visible as long as I didn't turn round, or get really far away).

      I think that's a prime example of some great ideas and vision wrecked by a curiously bad implementation of some specific, but crucial, elements (i.e. the terrain engine and the handling of player placed structures, which were everywhere in SWG). The game otherwise performed alright (although was frame rate limited to 30 FPS, IIRC - presumably because they didn't want to spend time fixing issues that would occur when rendering at > 30 FPS).

      From personal experience, the failure to get basic features down pat is something I tend to associate with companies that don't have staff at the top who really understand the business they are in. That has got to be the fault of bad management. That certainly seems to sum up SOE to me with EQ, SWG, PlanetSide - where they have either had great games they screwed up, or left to decline when they could have reasonably easily been maintained and remained profitable for a much long period - or, as CCP have shown with their handling of EVE - steadily grown over time in a maintainable fashion.
    9. Re:I did not know this was news. by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      I ran SWG before I got WOW, and the difference was night and day. SWG just performed horribly. I wrote off WOW at the time figuring as it was newer, it'd run worse. Not sure what finally made me give it a try, but I still play it now, and made the fatal mistake of introducing my wife to it. (I am now a WOW widower.)

      City of Heroes wasn't too bad when I tried that. Certainly looked nice. Handled nice. Had a few nice touches. Nothing immediately leapt out as me as being awful.

      Wish LOTRO ran better as I probably would dump WOW for a while and head off to Middle Earth. Perhaps in a year or two when my system is probably going to be better I'll give it a go again. (Assuming it's still running then.)

  3. meh by nawcom · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ever since he mentioned that you don't need to start at the beginning in order to get to a certain stage, i've just felt like it will be a bunch of mini-games, without present decisions being made in the current stage affecting your options in future stages of, what i assume, is the evolution of your creature(s). I have a feeling that the expansion pack he's been working on will be a ton better.

  4. 9.99 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, who's going to pay $9.99 for the Character Creator for game that, for all we know, could be vaporware?

    1. Re:9.99 by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > game that, for all we know, could be vaporware?

      2007 called. They're asking that you get with the times. 2006 was shouting at you in the background.

  5. Re:Vaporware by nawcom · · Score: 0

    the only difference I can think of is DirectX vs OpenGL. anyone know of the reason behind this?

  6. Quite low by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 4, Informative

    pixel shader 2.0 == directX 9 == 128MB video cards from 2003
    I suppose this is due to the long development. Hopefully the creative gameplay will overcome the lack of shiny and high res texture graphics. :)

    1. Re:Quite low by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

      HL2 Episode 2 only required a DX7 video card, and recommended a DX9 one. I wouldn't exactly call that game lacking shiny and high res textures.

    2. Re:Quite low by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      Yeah, after I posted that I realized I was being a bit dismissive. I guess the rate of advance has actually slowed a bit and 5 year old cards are not so terribly different from more recent cards. I upgraded from a 6 year old 128MB nvidia ti4200 just last year myself to play Oblivion at high settings and mods that increase texture resolutions. :)

    3. Re:Quite low by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      HL2 textures had low poly count and were generally easy to render. The game looked good because the texture artwork looked good. It's the ultimate efficiency hack.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Quite low by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you meant the models have low polygon counts. Textures are what go on the models. And yes, the textures made the difference. While the polygon counts were up there, they weren't as bad Doom 3 (released around the same time, I believe) and the textures made it all look just that much better.

    5. Re:Quite low by Kneo24 · · Score: 1
      I don't think you being dismissive is exactly bad. There's a huge difference between those DX9 cards and the more recent ones. DX10 cards are actually a huge leap. The low end ones probably blow the low-end DX9 cards out of the water.

      I have never actually tested that myself (low end to low end), but I did go from a high end DX9 card to a high end DX10 card. My jaw dropped at the FPS increase alone. Massive.

    6. Re:Quite low by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ya ya, and they reversed the polarity of the neutron flux, too. My point was, even for it's time HL2 was quite easy to run at high settings, unlike the content-free flop that was Doom3. You can't judge a game by how hard it is to run.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Quite low by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm perfectly fine with developers doing the homework and trying to make good looking game by all possible means, not just relying mostly on bling of latest GPUs...

      (@importance of textures: http://forums.galciv2.com/310173
      section "The Updated Graphics", also:
      http://forums.galciv2.com/167995
      I couldn't find the post in which they describe how they did it, so: each race has one, detailed, "ships texture", parts of which are used by all ships of given race; apparently it also means only one copy has to kept in memory = massive reduction of usage)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:Quite low by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, is this Nvidia/ATI shenanigans or is there some reason that pixel shader 2.0 can't be done in software...

      Spore doesn't seem likely to need uber framerates...

    9. Re:Quite low by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess the rate of advance has actually slowed a bit and 5 year old cards are not so terribly different from more recent cards
       
      This is where I post This post and get modded +5 interesting yet again. People keep forgetting relatively new games like Team Fortress 2 will run on five year old hardware (With the settings turned down a bit) running on Windows ME. A $600 "gaming rig" will play any game out there at 1280x1024 at 30fps with all the settings set to high. Why so cheap? Because not a whole lot has changed since the bleeding edge technology of 2003. We've gotten PCI-e and SATA cables.... that's about it. Innovate or slash prices.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    10. Re:Quite low by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Good: It might almost be playable on today's top-of-the-line laptops.

    11. Re:Quite low by __aardcx5948 · · Score: 1

      How many polygons were there in the textures again? :-P

    12. Re:Quite low by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If The Sims required a high-end graphics card it wouldn't have been nearly as successful, I guess they want to repeat that with Spore. Most people who have a casual interest in games and might want to see something like The Sims because it seems interesting have a fairly old or cheap PC.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:Quite low by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Half-Life 2 has higher polygon counts than Doom 3, the latter just has shaders that eat sick amounts of performance. Doom 3 uses way fewer polygons than even games that came before it, roughly 1.5k per character when Unreal 2 was already doing 3-5k.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:Quite low by lusiphur69 · · Score: 1

      Um..textures don't have low poly count - those are models - textures have low fidelity aka resolution.

    15. Re:Quite low by MoldySpore · · Score: 0

      It's a trap!

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    16. Re:Quite low by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      HL2 textures had low poly count and were generally easy to render. The game looked good because the texture artwork looked good. It's the ultimate efficiency hack.

      Wow, the game looked good because it actually used high-quality artwork instead of fancy video card tricks? I didn't think that was still allowed in games!

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    17. Re:Quite low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot believe that the retard around this post got modded up for being retardedly wrong, then blowing off good information. Who the hell is getting mod points on slashdot nowadays?

  7. Re:Vaporware by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 1

    Not really. In this day and age where 1TB HD's starting to become quite common, a gig and a half is nothing.

  8. Shader model 2. by atezun · · Score: 1

    Well, my machine will run it.

    *Dances happy dance and begins to prepare letters of absence*

    1. Re:Shader model 2. by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mine will not.

      Why, yes, I do cry into my pillow every night...

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    2. Re:Shader model 2. by rampant+mac · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Why, yes, I do cry into my pillow every night..."

      That's better than bitting into your pillow every night, I guess.

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    3. Re:Shader model 2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm, that comment pair with your sig makes me think you a very mean man.

  9. Modest specs -- pretty much what you'd expect by merreborn · · Score: 4, Informative

    I built a machine 6 months ago for about $400 that should work acceptably, according to these specs -- a $100 asus mobo, $100 for an old geforce 7600, $50 for the cheapest AMD dual-core proc, and $50 for 2 gig of ram.

    Glad to see they took the time to make sure Spore will run on low end PCs.

    1. Re:Modest specs -- pretty much what you'd expect by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I built mine around August for about $1300. A GeForce 8800 GTX, an Intel Core 2 Quad, and 2 gigs of dual channel DDR2 1066 RAM ranked among the fancier pieces. I had assumed Spore would require a beefy CPU to run, as I also foresaw a general move in gaming towards focus on multicore machines. Oyi, did I ever guess wrong!

      I mean sure, Oblivion flies, I'm all set for future Source-based games, and Crysis runs like a dream but at what cost? AT WHAT COST!?! Oh right, $1300. At any rate, it certainly seems I was wrong in my prediction of what direction things are going; more and more I see games come out with surprisingly low recommended specs. Sure Valve's Source engine, Crytek's CryEngine 2, and (soon too) ID Tech 5, all support multicore CPUs, but I'm not seeing the games really making them essential.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Modest specs -- pretty much what you'd expect by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By taking so long to develop the game that piece took care of itself. It's like if you wanted to run Duke Nukem Forever, back when they announced it, it would only run on what was basically a supercomputer. Not the case anymore.

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  10. 768MB RAM on Vista?? by Grave · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Did they even *test* the game before putting that number out? I refuse to believe it is playable with so little ram on Vista. Let me rephrase. I'm sure it's possible to load up the game with only 768MB, but you wouldn't actually want to play it like that. You wouldn't even want to play Freecell on Vista like that.

    1. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can say the same with XP at 512 or OSX at 1 gb. Wonder why you omit them? Less likely to get free mod-points I guess.

    2. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Will Wright has explicitly stated that they tried for lower system specs so people won't need to upgrade their machine. And now people say they're lying when they announce low system requirements.

      They said Visa users needs significantly more RAM than XP users. In other words, they recognized the very point of your criticism and adjusted for it.

      Everybody here already knows Vista sucks. We don't need to hear it again at any flimsy opportunity.

      --
      Property is theft.
    3. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by pdusen · · Score: 1

      I've played Oblivion and Half-Life 2 Episode 2 on Vista with 1 gig of RAM. You don't know what you're talking about.

    4. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by krelian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently, on Linux even 4GB of RAM won't make it playable.

    5. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by indi0144 · · Score: 0

      You're talking about that it does not come ported for Linux? Spore could be nice on wine with that requirements. It's just a guess

    6. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by ikono · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah. Mastercard is MUCH better.

      --
      Karma is for whores
    7. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      I remember running WoW fine on an XP laptop with 512MB RAM.

    8. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      There is no Linux version. So no amount of RAM will make is "playable". IOW, "able to be played".

    9. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      No, you really can't. I've never had a problem playing fairly advanced 3D games on an XP computer with 512mb RAM.

    10. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Well with EA releasing it, that means mac support will be though cider which is basically a cedega wrapper for mac.

      I'd bet that this will run just as well on linux via cedega/wine as it does on mac.

    11. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by Grave · · Score: 1

      How is 1GB the same as 768MB? It's not. That extra 256MB makes a real difference with Vista.

    12. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by Grave · · Score: 1

      XP has far far lower memory requirements than Vista, so 512MB is believable. Can't speak for OSX though.

    13. Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and Spore isn't the same as Oblivion. Have you seen screenshots?

  11. start flaming by athdemo · · Score: 1

    RAM requirements: XP: 512mb Vista: 768mb OSX: 1gb

    1. Re:start flaming by atezun · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Macs "LOVE" RAM in my experience.

    2. Re:start flaming by VRisaMetaphor · · Score: 4, Funny

      In soviet Russia, RAM loves EWE!

    3. Re:start flaming by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Notice how every Mac comes with a gigabyte of RAM. In my experience giving a Mac more memory always increases performance, even if Activity Monitor says you aren't fully using the RAM you had before upgrading.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    4. Re:start flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you put LOVE in quotation marks? Do Macs actually hate RAM?

    5. Re:start flaming by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      No, they just love being ironic.

    6. Re:start flaming by hesiod · · Score: 1

      It's been a LOOOOOONG time since I laughed out loud at a Soviet Russia joke. Well played, sir.

    7. Re:start flaming by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like much of a stretch. ...That's what she said.
      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    8. Re:start flaming by Slur · · Score: 1

      On a lot of the latest Macs - laptops in particular - the video ram is part the main memory pool, so video-intensive games have to take that into account. On Macs with better video cards, I'll wager it plays reasonably on a 768MB system.

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
  12. Missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They left off what version of Wine will be needed...

    *ducks*

  13. Some actual Spore news... by Bwana+Geek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not mentioned in the article or summary is the much more interesting news that the Sporepedia is live. Go check out some of the creatures that the Maxis team has created. Some of them are quite different from those I've seen in previous media.

    1. Re:Some actual Spore news... by jthill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So I go check it out, and I see this:

      How do you see one of these Creatures in your Spore Creature Creator? Right Click on the thumbnail image of the creature. Save the image to your desktop. Drag the saved image from your desktop into the Spore Creature Creator. Voila! The Creature is in your game.

      Whoever thought that up deserves a few moments of quiet respect.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    2. Re:Some actual Spore news... by biovoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Very cool. The creature data is encoded as binary in the alpha channel of the PNG. That means any creature can be defined in under 2KB.

    3. Re:Some actual Spore news... by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      It appears as though alpha values of 255 and 254 are used. GIMP time! Decompose, threshold. Link

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:Some actual Spore news... by biovoid · · Score: 1

      The whole image is used. The transparent parts around the creature also contain data.. switching between alpha 0 and 1.

      I'd guess that even alpha == 0, odd alpha == 1.

    5. Re:Some actual Spore news... by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

      If you look at the color data in the transparent areas, you will see that data is stored in the RGB channels too. I think the entire image is used, where an odd value == 1 and an even value == 0. I've tried compiling the information in various ways, but so far I don't have anything. I'm guessing that the name/comments are included in the data, but I haven't seen it yet.

  14. After hearing about.. by FredFredrickson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After hearing about the copy-protection scheme announced earlier last month- I'm not interested in buying. No way am I connecting every other week to prove I purchased this game.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:After hearing about.. by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Informative

      They apparently caved to the public outcry (EA listening to its customers? No wai!!) and have scaled back their copy-protection scheme. Now it will require verification when you first install the game as well as anytime you use it to retrieve online content (creatures, patches, etc.).

    2. Re:After hearing about.. by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe EA has backed off slightly after the outcry over that scheme. I believe now they check upon initial installation and whenever new content is downloaded.

      Which is still pretty obscene, since downloading new content is one of the main features of the game. Your point still stands, I agree with it, and won't be buying this for the pc.

      These registration schemes, along with constantly increasing requirements, are killing pc gaming.

    3. Re:After hearing about.. by Etrias · · Score: 1

      While I would normally agree with you on the copyright schemes and such, but with it being available to so many systems at launch...what's the big deal about popping your CD in the tray?

      Seriously, if you are going to buy it for console, that's what you have to do to play it anyway. How is this any worse on a PC?

      Don't get me wrong, I can be as lazy as any other PC gamer and I hate having to pop in a CD just to have it run it's verification check, but if I had this game on a PS3 or X-box, I still have to put the stupid thing in the machine anyway.

    4. Re:After hearing about.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

      what's the big deal about popping your CD in the tray?

      My laptop doesn't have an optical drive, you insensitive clod!

      And no, I'm not joking: I install software by pulling the optical drive out of my girlfriend's desktop and hooking an IDE->USB converter to it, but there's no way in Hell I'm going to do that on a regular basis!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:After hearing about.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I don't think checking if your key is valid every time you go online with the game is that uncommon, it's rarely broken and gives an incentive for buying the game over pirating it. Other games lock you out of multiplayer, Spore would lock you out of the other web features.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:After hearing about.. by Woy · · Score: 1

      "A is killing pc gaming"
      "B is killing pc gaming"
      "C is killing pc gaming"

      Meanwhile pc gamers play. I have been playing for a while, and i have 2 comments on this:

      - All interesting and innovative stuff is coming out on PC. While this is the reality, every other platform is more likely to die than the PC. I am talking dwarffortress-class innovation, NOT better graphics.
      - The massive population of console users is mostly unexperienced gamers that will in time get bored of the limitations of consoles in both input and variety of games. Half of them will end up pc gamers.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    7. Re:After hearing about.. by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Assuming it's the same securom restriction as mass effect (and previously bioshock) - which it's been said it will be - you'll get 3 install activation 'credits', which must be done online. Uninstalling/reinstalling on the same computer and the same copy of windows will re-use the activation already made, as of course will having your activation checked when you retrieve more creatures.

      Reinstalling windows on your pc, or upgrading hardware will then cost you another of your three activations.

      Once you've hit the limit, you'll need to phone EA tech support - a premium rate phone call in my country - and request permission to install your game, most likely then having to provide proof of purchase. Permission is granted on a case-by-case basis, and not guaranteed.

      They caved only insomuch as providing a more restrictive limitation than bioshock, rather than a more restrictive limit than bioshock plus constant 10 day online activation.

      It's not a purchase. It's a rental. I for one have cancelled my pre-order.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    8. Re:After hearing about.. by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Copy protection killed MY pc gaming. I said screw it and stopped buying games. It wasn't worth the hassle.

      Now I just play console games on my 50 inch tv.

    9. Re:After hearing about.. by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 1

      EA has "scaled back" the copy protection. Now it's almost the same as the copy protection on Bioshock, (both use SecuROM) except no license revoke tool to transfer the software to another machine, and not as many activations allowed. Three activations maximum.

      What's really strange is that a lot of people seem to be OK with this. I think, basically, EA said "We're going to cut off your head and your arm if you play this game," and everyone cried out "That's horrible!" So EA said "Ok, ok. We won't cut off your arm," and everyone rejoiced.

    10. Re:After hearing about.. by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Yeah... getting an external USB DVD Drive is *so* expensive... I'm not sure how I was able to buy one for my wife... oh, wait, maybe I just spent $50 at newegg.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    11. Re:After hearing about.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 0, Troll

      But what kind of dumbfuck wants to carry it around all the time, especially when he went out of his way to get the smallest and lightest laptop he possibly could in the first place?!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:After hearing about.. by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you had to carry it around all the time. You leave it on your desk at home / work. It's a lot more convenient than pulling out someone else's optical drive out of their desktop.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    13. Re:After hearing about.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you had to carry it around all the time.

      But you do have to carry it around all the time, if you want to be able to play games that insist on having the CD in the drive.

      You leave it on your desk at home / work.

      No, you fucking can't, because anyone who could do that would have just bought a heavier laptop that included an optical drive to begin with! Here's a newsflash: if you have a laptop so small that it doesn't have an optical drive, then portability is obviously really important to you. If portability is that important for you, then it's probably for a reason, such as the fact that you don't fucking have a desk!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:After hearing about.. by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I exaggerated a bit. I don't think pc gaming is dead. I still game on the pc quite a bit. But nothing any big studio has published in the last three years. Old games, emulators, new indy games, that sort of thing. That's great. Newest big-budget blockbuster? Nah. If I get it, it'll be for a console.

  15. Re:Vaporware by pdusen · · Score: 1

    Where do people get this vaporware crap from? Games with development times of five years or so are far from uncommon. Duke Nukem Forever and TF2 both deserved the title. So why do so many people mistakenly apply it to Spore?

  16. Looks like I won't be able to install Spore by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had to make room for a more imminent releases like Duke Nukem Forever, The Arrival of Godot and Jesus, The Second Coming.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  17. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Testing with variations of RAM between 512MB and 1GB on a Mac would be an absolutely useless waste of time.

    Intel Macs were either sold as one configuration or the other. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think any Core 2 Duo systems were even sold with less than a gig of RAM.

    1. Re:Why? by xperimental · · Score: 1

      Actually, the base model C2D MacBook only had 512 MB when it was first released.

    2. Re:Why? by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      It also doesn't meet the graphics requirement, which specifically says GMA X3100.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
  18. Re:Vaporware by Toonol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In fact, I challenge you! I don't think I can be sent tons of obscene pornography! Prove me wrong!

  19. Re:Vaporware by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

    So why do so many people mistakenly apply it to Spore?

    Because Spore was originally slated to be released in late 2006.

    --
    We are all just people.
  20. Missing features by Haoie · · Score: 1

    From what I read recently, quite a substantial amount of content is either cut, or reduced in scope.

    What comes to find first are the rules for dealing with flying/swimming creatures.

    --
    If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    1. Re:Missing features by navygeek · · Score: 1

      What have you read and where did you read it?

  21. How bout that "Extended Download Service"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you try to pre-order, you're taken to a helpful, filled-out order form that includes the Spore Creature Editor for $9.99 and an item EA calls "Extended Download Service" for $5.99. WTF? A helpful link next to the item explains:

    "EDS means that with the purchase of your digital product, we'll keep a copy of your file for two full years, so you don't have to. You'll gain peace of mind knowing that we have your program stored and ready for you to download again at your convenience."

    So what it sounds like is, if you upgrade your PC, the only way you can lay your paws on your software that you purchased from EA is if you also pay "protection" money to them. And then only for two years. Swell, huh?

    1. Re:How bout that "Extended Download Service"? by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      So what it sounds like is, if you upgrade your PC, the only way you can lay your paws on your software that you purchased from EA is if you also pay "protection" money to them. And then only for two years. Swell, huh? Or burn the download to a CD, or save it to a thumb drive, or save to another partition on your HDD. It's the same digital river style 'download protection' that's been in use for the past 8 years, it's a backup for the lazy.

    2. Re:How bout that "Extended Download Service"? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You do realize you can keep a backup of the file yourself, right? EA are under no obligation to waste bandwidth allowing you to download the file time and again for free.

    3. Re:How bout that "Extended Download Service"? by Kneo24 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why not? STEAM does it and people love them for it! That of course doesn't mean they *have to*, but one would think if they want to stay competitive in that sector of the business, it would be a good idea.

    4. Re:How bout that "Extended Download Service"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The default on EA.com is to store the file for 6 months. All you have to do is go back to the store and get it.

      Make a backup of the file and code you get, this way you'll for certain have a copy.

  22. Re:Vaporware by pdusen · · Score: 1

    Yeah, a two year delay, bringing the dev time up to 5 years. Which makes it heavily delayed and nowhere near the level of vaporware.

  23. I think its the best AI technique -- cheating by patio11 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You might think that this would take ungodly amounts of image recognition technology. And that is true, for the general case of "Import any image into Spore". But given that you have procedural creature generation, all you have to do is ship the Creature Creator with as many critters as you want to be discoverable (cheap to you: its just a list of parameters), give them all a unique ID, and then make sure your website serves up thumbnails with the ID embedded in the filename. The ID essentially serves as an unlock code for content which was already on the CD/download/etc.

    (Alternatively, for extra robustness, you write the ID in the thumbnail somewhere -- there is plenty of dead space in the PNG specification.)

    Then the user sees the import process work and is like "Wowza, you could read in pictures!" All of the joy of implementing a full scanning engine, none of the work.

    --
    Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
    1. Re:I think its the best AI technique -- cheating by biovoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      The creature data is encoded as binary in the alpha channel of the PNG. 2KB of compressed data. Simple but effective.

    2. Re:I think its the best AI technique -- cheating by jackbird · · Score: 1

      You need to review combinatorial math, monkeys with typewriters, etc.

  24. WINE/*nix Requirements? by ZephyrXero · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm...I wonder what kind of specs you'll need to run the game decently through WINE? Hell, really I just hope it runs at all. Hopefully the release of the creature creator next week will help give the WINE devs plenty of time to make sure the full game will play when it's released ;)

    Also...since there's an official Mac port, that does mean the game should have an optional OpenGL render right?

    --
    "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    1. Re:WINE/*nix Requirements? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Being EA the mac port is just the windows version wrapped in Cider. Which means it should run just fine in wine.

    2. Re:WINE/*nix Requirements? by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 1

      Careful; Spore comes with product activation, so you better make sure you know what you're doing when you install it under Wine, otherwise you could end up wasting an activation or two.

    3. Re:WINE/*nix Requirements? by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      Is there any official/documented proof that it's not a true native port?

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    4. Re:WINE/*nix Requirements? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Well when EA announced they were going to have simultaneous releases of pc and mac games they announced they would be using cider for their games. From that point on, all the games EA has released mac versions for have been via cider.

      So I'd say it is probably using cider. This backs me up

      http://www.tuaw.com/2008/02/15/will-wright-mac-users-will-love-spore/

  25. Not necessarily by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ever since he mentioned that you don't need to start at the beginning in order to get to a certain stage, i've just felt like it will be a bunch of mini-games, without present decisions being made in the current stage affecting your options in future stages of, what i assume, is the evolution of your creature(s).


    Not necessarily. It can just mean you have a bunch of predefined choices at each step. It doesn't mean you can't do better.

    I mean, look at, say, Paradox's games. Different genre, I know, but they do illustrate the point nevertheless.

    You can start Hearts Of Iron in 1941 and get directly to attacking the USSR, or being attacked if you play the USSR. In which case you'll start from the historical situation in 1941. But you can also start in 1936, build up your economy, and build up teh uber-Wehrmacht or Red Army, and deliver some serious smack down when 1941 comes. Or play a USA which didn't wait around for Pearl Harbour to start thinking about war, and is in much better shape to deliver a devastating punch when that happens. Play a France which picked different doctrines and built up its army, and can hold its own at the Maginot Line. Etc.

    Essentially having the option to skip to 1941, doesn't make the 1936 option meaningless. You can and _do_ affect your options in the future by starting earlier.

    Ditto in any other of their games. You can skip to the 1600's in EU2 and get to colonizing America, or even directly at the Napoleonic wars, or start in 1419 as an England bogged down in the 100 year war and work your way from there.

    Heck, IIRC you can even export your world from one game to the next, and play it as one uber-campaign spanning 1000 years. You can start in Crusader Kings, export to EU2 when you reach the 1400's, export to Victoria in early 1800's, and (if you have the expansion pack) export to Hearts Of Iron when you reach the 1930's. The option to start directly with Hearts Of Iron doesn't make the previous stages meaningless minigames. Starting at CK can _massively_ affect your options later. You can end up in EU2 with a Byzantine Empire that regained the former lands of the Roman Empire and has the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum (our sea), instead of being a one-province victim of the Turks. Colonize, get to Victoria with it, and you can try to out-industrialize the English. Make Byzantium _the_ industrial and cultural capital of the world, like in the old days, and the empire over whose flag the sun never sets. Etc.

    You can still ask, "why?" because it gets so ahistorical that it's not even funny. Still, the principle remains. And as Spore isn't a historical game, even that objection vanishes.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  26. Mod Parent Up by andrewd18 · · Score: 1

    arkhan_ig hit it right on the nose. It's a rental, not a purchase. I'll stick to buying games with a reasonable DRM policy.

  27. Re:Vaporware by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The PC install is about 27.6% larger than the Mac install...

  28. Cost per player? by tepples · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    and Crysis runs like a dream but at what cost? AT WHAT COST!?! Oh right, $1300. But most multiplayer PC games require one PC per player. How much would it cost to upgrade the PCs used by the other members of your household?
    1. Re:Cost per player? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Initiating Karma burn:

      Oh for Christ's sake, tepples. We get it. You have been posting the same insipid shit in every PC game story for TWO GODDAMN YEARS. You prefer console gaming. People who play old-school roms on PC emulators are blaspheming heretics. Split-screen is next to godliness.

      WE GET THE IDEA. For fuck's sake, go find a vagina already.

  29. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any application can be defined as vaporware until it condenses to a torrent file.

  30. Input limitations by tepples · · Score: 1

    The massive population of console users is mostly unexperienced gamers that will in time get bored of the limitations of consoles in both input and variety of games. Half of them will end up pc gamers. PCs also have input limitations: the vast majority of PC games can't take input from more than one player when run on a home theater PC. As for variety, is there really much other than M-rated first-person shooters, real-time war simulators, and MMORPGs? Where's the counterpart to Smash Bros., Mario Party, or Bomberman on an HTPC?
    1. Re:Input limitations by Woy · · Score: 1
      As for variety, is there really much other than M-rated first-person shooters, real-time war simulators, and MMORPGs?

      My point exactly. Go out and explore. With a PC.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
  31. Re:Vaporware by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

    It seems like we've been hearing about it since day 1. It eventually creeps into the vaporware category after a while.

  32. Obligatory Torrent LInk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4239597/Spore_Creature_Creator