Spore DRM Protest Makes EA Ease Red Alert 3 Restrictions

Crazy Taco writes "The heavy Amazon.com protest of Spore's DRM appears to have caught the attention of executives at EA. IGN reports that DRM for the upcoming C&C: Red Alert 3 will be scaled back. Unlike previous Command and Conquer games, the CD will not be required in the drive to play. The online authentication will be done just once (rather than periodic phone calls home), and up to five installations will be allowed, as opposed to three for Spore. While I still think five installations is too few (I've probably re-installed Command and Conquer: Generals 20 times over the years for various reasons), EA says they will have staff standing by to grant more installations as necessary on a case by case basis. So, while this still isn't optimal, at least we are getting a compromise. Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."

Comments

How is this a compromise?

[ccguy]

They are just saying 'OK, Spore hurt too much and the customers are making too much noise. Let's use a smaller dick with the next game'.

What they should do is be honest and describe the limitations in the box.

-Warning: Zero resale value.
-This game can only be installed 5 times.
-This game will refuse to run when other applications are running or installed.
-Some applications will be installed to verify playing rights. These applications will be running even when the game is not.

Would that hurt sales? If they think they are offering a reasonable 'compromise' then they should just do it, and no one will have a reason to complain.

If they think it would be suicidal to do it, then they know they are still fucking their customers. So expect no sympathy.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Azruelli]

Can spore really only be installed five times? Is this just five times ONLY or just on five different machines? Now it's really making me rethink even opening it whenever I get the chance to play it..

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Spore can only be installed three times. Red Alert 3 can only be installed five times.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Ubahs]

Spore can only be installed three times. Without making phone calls, it's three installs ONLY.

RA3, will be able to be installed five times.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[LrdDimwit]

Agreed. They still programmed the game to self-destruct. On purpose. So it's still unacceptable; If there's even a chance that, should I want to replay the game in 10 years, but I pop the game in and can't install it, then I'm not buying it. And if your game isn't good enough I'd want to play it twice, it's probably not good enough I'd want to play it once either.

Fundamentally, there is an important point with DRM on works of culture that's not applicable when applied to the things DRM is usually applied to. At work, for example, the provider of our middleware application has implemented license checks that could cause the same kind of issue. But a middleware app won't work cause it won't activate anymore? It's probably out of support anyway, time to move to a new version.

Businesses don't usually need a particular version -- and if they do, and it's a big enough showstopper, the vendor comes out and does a hot fix so new-version does what old-version did better. (Yes you can, I've seen it. You just have to need it badly enough.)

Games are different. Halo 2 is not the same as Halo. Twilight Princess is a very different game from Zelda 64. The "upgraded" original Star Wars trilogy cuts are widely seen as inferior to the original versions. Then there are games like Planescape: Torment, which is essentially unreleaseable (Interplay died, D&D license expired, uses 2nd edition, content wouldn't pass Hasbro's restrictions). So while enforcing obsolesence on middleware *might* be OK, it's definitely not OK to make video games that are essentially guaranteed not to work in 10 years.

So nice try, EA. Good, but not good enough. Games have an aesthetic quality; a given game is totally unique and irreplaceable -- that's why we like them.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[hansamurai]

And EA still has no obligation to fulfill more than 3/5 installs. 10 years from now when I want to play Spore will those staff still be standing by to help me out or will they instead suggest to buy Spore 3 and go screw myself?

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Ubahs]

I'm pretty sure it's the latter..."go screw yourself, but give us more money first."

I'm recommending to everyone I know that they should buy it and pirate it at the same time. It inflates the piracy numbers making EA slightly more scared, you still show your support for certain aspects of the project (the core game) - and you're protecting your financial investment by future proofing it against EA's decisions.

That and there is a good chance the retail game won't work in a decent percentage of the population's DVD-ROM's...so, downloading the game is the only way many people are even able to play their purchase. For example, my roommates year old laptop wouldn't spin up the game, she had to go through three DVD-ROM's to be able to install the damned game. This is after a nightmare OS/HD wipe and reinstall. No game should cause you to do that, just so you can install it.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero resale value goes against first sale doctrine.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how they consider it "easing restrictions" by going from 3 installs to 5. That's the only change here. That you can play without the CD? So what? I can play a LOT of PC games without the CD (and even more if you count digital downloads). And that isn't easing anything anyway. Spore can be played without the CD and Red Alert had always been expected to be playable without a CD. Further, this "five installs" was in place for Red Alert BEFORE the whole Spore DRM issue. This is a non article, really.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[wondershit]

Very true. The answer remains no.

Solar Empire has no copy protection at all and has sold half a million copies.

There is something very wrong. I don't want to ask for permission to use something I legally bought. DRM server crashed? Sorry, no gaming for you today as it happened with Bioshock. There is absolutely no excuse for doing such a thing. Not piracy and nothing else. At least not in the way it is handled now (and I don't know of any unintrusive alternative).

Re:How is this a compromise?

[jopsen]

you forgot to mention the rootkit and phone home features...

Re:How is this a compromise?

[claytonjr]

So nice try, EA. Good, but not good enough. Games have an aesthetic quality; a given game is totally unique and irreplaceable -- that's why we like them.

How is this even considered a nice try? How is this considered good? It is not good. Its fucking pathetic.

Not that I endorse it, but piracy exists for a reason. EA is just adding fuel to the fire, by treating their customers like they are crooks. As if the people that pay money, for this crap, can not be trusted.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[MaineCoon]

Reinstalling to the same hardware doesn't count as one of the installs.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[im just cannonfodder]

they are trying to destroy the second hand game market.

have you read this?

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169899

FTA: Even on the same PC, extra copies needed for each family member who wants a new profile.

As if there was any need to further incite angry gamers with Spore's DRM issues, The Consumerist yesterday ran a story on how -- in addition to the many other restrictions the game's DRM presents gamers with -- a copy of Spore provides you with only a single game account. In other words, if you've got multiple people in the same house who want to play Spore and have their own individual online personas, you'll have to buy an additional copy of Spore for each person.

Forget what you may have read on the manual -- particularly that part on page 53 which reads, "You may have multiple Spore accounts for each installation of the game." An EA spokesperson going by the name "EA_Violet" has clarified questions regarding the matter on the official Spore forums, providing us this disappointing revelation:

"That section in the manual was a misprint and will be corrected in future printings of the manual. There is one Spore registration/account per game/serial code so you are correct in that you cannot make multiple accounts at this time. I have sent your guys' feedback to the game team though since I can understand the desire to share a game on a system that you entire family uses."

For a "misprint" the language seems pretty clear, and it is common practice for games to allow different user profiles so you can login and play with your own data/saves(naturally, with only one instance of the game running at any given time). One can't help but wonder whether this feature was removed so late in the process that the manual had already gone to print. Regardless, if this policy sticks after the game team reviews the feedback noted in the post it will only fan the fires of gamers frustrated with EA's handling of Spore. While we stand staunchly against piracy, requiring each member of a household to buy their own individual copy of the game seems like one of those policies that could backfire, driving people who otherwise wouldn't dream of it to potentially consider it as an alternative. But maybe this is simply an example of not having thought things through.

Should it hold true, this revelation also calls the game's strict installation restrictions into question. If each game serial code only authorizes a single account registration that should render how many times you install the game fairly moot.

We've contacted EA for a comment on the story but have yet to receive a response.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Thaddeaus]

Spore can only be installed 3 times on three DIFFERENT sets of hardware. So if you have 4 different gaming boxes you're SOL. You CAN install Spore as many times as you like on the same set of hardware, which means that this particular "issue" really isn't one for 99% of the people buying the game.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[fastest fascist]

EA has no motivation to give a damn about your playing the game in the far future. For them, the ideal would be to sell you a 50 currency-unit game that you maybe start once and then never play again. The instant you pay for a game that game starts to eat into EA's revenue because as long as you're playing it, you have less incentive to buy a new one. (And they have to ship bug fixes, maybe run servers etc. depending on the game.) That they have to provide you with a reasonable amount of content to get you to play the game is an unfortunate reality.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Goldberg's Pants]

Please get your facts right, or at least fill things out more. You get 3 installs OUT OF THE BOX. If you need more, you have to contact EA. This is no different than a lot of other online licensing mechanisms. (Trymedia for example.)

I bought Spore, downloaded the crack and used that. Game works fine, online works fine. No authentication needed so I've used zero activations. Don't give a flying shit about anything else EA has in the pipeline so they can sell the games with zero authentications for all I care.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[0111 1110]

Yes. Because the typical gamer only owns one computer in their lifetime and never upgrades that computer.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[bobmarleypeople]

I must agree here. I've done that with several games before now: Bought the game and then pirated the crack to fix the following bugs:
a) number of installs
2) disc MUST be inserted to play -_-
Z) phoning home all the time

It supports the developers to say "this game is awesome, make more like it", but also gives them a kick up the rear as if to say "STOP WITH THE FISHING DRM ALREADY UNLESS YOU WANT US TO GOUGE YOUR EYES OUT WITH A POIN-TED STICK....AAAARRRGGGHHH". Pardon me. I'll be back later once I have re-acquired my game-face.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

5 times! Woweeee. Still outrageous and utterly unacceptable. If consumers tolerate this, they should not be surprised when blu-ray movies "enhanced" with a limit of 3 or 5 viewings maximum are introduced within a few years. Putting up with such schemes will only ensure that other industries will follow.

Well fuck that. Apologies to the dev team, but I'll be grabbing my copy of this from the nearest torrent tracker when it becomes available. Zero tolerance is going to be the only effective weapon against these Orwellian measures. Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Macrat]

-Warning: Zero resale value.

Warning: you don't BUY software.. you rent a right to use license.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[PotatoSan]

One could argue that EA might interpret that as "people happy with the game and are buying it, but there are more people pirating it even with this level of DRM, so we need to make it more restrictive." Unless they can correlate people using cracks with the people buying the game, that's not going to get your point across.

Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) taking this passive-aggressive route, why not contact EA directly and say "Hey, I bought this game, I like it, but I can't deal with these bullshit restrictions." That way you make your opinion known unambiguously without having to rely on their interpretation of pirating information.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[cjb658]

It would be interesting to get EA's reaction to having a ton of people buy the game and never activate it (due to using the crack).

If you go this route, make sure you register it so that EA knows you bought it!

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Gr8Apes]

and they'll hang up and go "great! One more sucker's $"

Re:How is this a compromise?

[TheRaven64]

They still programmed the game to self-destruct. On purpose. So it's still unacceptable

No, not unacceptable, they just need to price it accordingly. Games with this level of DRM will probably work once. They are like the bit of technology you buy from a dodgy-looking bloke at a jumble sale - working when he demos it, will probably work when you get home, might keep working next week if you're lucky. Maybe worth a dollar or two, definitely not worth fifty.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that you cannot revoke any installations. This destroys resale value.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[ccguy]

Warning: you don't BUY software.. you rent a right to use license.

Sorry, no. I could be *BUYING* a license (plus physical media) which are then mine to resell.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[aywwts4]

Exactly, and that's IF EA still exists! I can't think of a single PC game I own that hasn't been re-installed over 5 times. Lets play a game, Going through my old PC game library, I can just imagine how some of these calls would have gone down had these kind of restrictions existed when I was a kid.

"Hello, Interplay? Yeah, I need to re-authorize Descent and Conquest of the New World, whats that, There are like, ten people working at your company and you are mostly bankrupt? Getting evicted from your offices? That sucks" (side note, interplay has no way to contact them at all on their years old single image webpage, though they have apparently sold some assets recently)

Hello, Vivendi Universal, yeah I need to authorize some of my games, Well it was a Sierra game, you know, before you bought Sierra, oh you know that, good. well actually Sierra bought this company a decade before that, so can you authorize it? Oh they took those servers down years ago along with the multiplay lobby? Right...

Hello, Activision, I know this might be a long-shot, But I was trying to re-install some of my Infocom games and, well you shut them down in 89... Yeah, you own their games, really, never heard of it? Zork? Nothing? Well I'm wondering if you can activate it for me, why are you laughing? What's so funny?...

I love playing games old and new, and I certainly expect that just as I can pop in super mario bros or sonic into my old systems, that I can also reinstall old PC games forever and ever, (on the OS they were designed for) The games industry is a volatile place, the rock solid big player of one decade is the next decades dinosaur, becoming a forgotten footnote in a companies IP portfolio.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[DJCacophony]

Or buy it, don't open it, and return it, to inflate their return numbers.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just chat about the Spore implementation for a minute:

The worst part is, of course, that DRM is a cannon clearly aimed at the customer. You occasionally see the mellow customer who's willing to accept a scheme like this to "cut down on piracy", but it's pure ignorance to even hint at the idea that this actually helps to combat it in any way whatsoever.

And you know what? I don't even need to produce a thoughtful argument for my case. Days before the game even hit the streets, it was cracked and available online. Hell, there are countless reports that the commercial version is unpredictable and prone to crashing while the pirated, cracked, DRM-free version has been running flawless for most pirate users.

Who wins here? EA isn't cutting back piracy. Pirates are playing the game (with more success than those who bought the game, it would seem), and the customer is left as a footnote. The prospect that you only get to activate your game so many times is just plain ridiculous - I go to a brick and mortar store and buy my game: that should be where it ends. I shouldn't have to worry about whether or not I'll be able to convince whatever telephone CSR to unlock my game for me once or twice or however many times I care to reinstall in the future. Guess what? Many power users reinstall several times a year.

It's funny. I used to laugh at the comments on here that claimed copy protection just served to make customers feel like criminals - because when your activations are up and you're making your case every time you want to install, you really will be made to feel that way.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[jkerman]

It says in the spore EULA that you /can/ transfer the license 'one time' to a new party.

that new party should then be bound by the license in full, and also be able to transfer it to a third party 'one time'

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Tacticus.v1]

You have to call to get more activations
and in .au that's 2.95 a minute to wait on hold while some stupid frakking helldesk tool flips a coin to decide if you get to use your game or not

plus costing 100 USDish :(

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

And never wipes their system drive because too many stealth drivers have been installed. And the Registry never gets out of hand. Oh, and no one ever gets infected with worms that can't be gotten rid of without a total wipe. ...starting to get the picture, yet?

Re:How is this a compromise?

[funkdancer]

3 max installs? That is, of course, unless you get the DRM free version. :P I think EA are making it pretty clear which one to get.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[mrchaotica]

I'm recommending to everyone I know that they should buy it and pirate it at the same time. It inflates the piracy numbers making EA slightly more scared, you still show your support for certain aspects of the project (the core game) - and you're protecting your financial investment by future proofing it against EA's decisions.

I'd rather pirate it and then send $50 anonymously to Will Wright, with a note explaining why I did that instead of buying the game. Or pirate it and donate $50 to the EFF in EA's name. Or not play it at all.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pst. Look at the back of your game box. It seems to say 'One registration per game'

Re:How is this a compromise?

[crossmr]

On the other hand, I bought a game called the Omega Syndrome. Independent developer. I went to play it again and he had closed up shop. I had my key but needed the files (it was shareware, after you bought it you activated it and applied a couple more exe packages to install the rest of the content). I managed to track his name to a developer forum and find an email address for him and he got back to me with the files.

I hate to say it but regardless of which companies that go out of business The Pirate Bay and Gamecopyworld will always be around. If there is some game you're still playing 10 years from now and the company has folded, the multiplayer scene is likely going to suck anyway so that aspect really isn't that much of a concern. It doesn't excuse them, I just don't think you'll ever genuinely be in a position where you can't play your games.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[davolfman]

Exactly. We should let them know that install-limited games are only worth microtransaction prices.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Ubahs]

I agree that it'd be quite easy for them to misinterpret the scenario I listed. But, I was implying that the pirate numbers should be higher than normal - all listing DRM as the reason (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/09/12/spore-drm-piracy-tech-security-cx_ag_mji_0912spore.html?feed=rss_popstories) for the download.

Eh, this might or might now work. PC games seem to be a shrinking industry as it is. This is probably another check mark in the EA 'never again do a PC game' spreadsheet.

Oh, and yes, passive aggressive, I'm from Seattle. That's what we do here.

Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) taking this passive-aggressive route, why not contact EA directly and say "Hey, I bought this game, I like it, but I can't deal with these bullshit restrictions." That way you make your opinion known unambiguously without having to rely on their interpretation of pirating information.

I'd actually like to do that, but that doesn't work. Not unless the population of something the size of Slashdot does it. A campaign could be mounted, organized, and communicate in massive numbers...but, all we wanted to do was buy a game and play it. Besides, I think the 2300+ 1-star Amazon reviews, Forbes article, Slashdot, and the rest of the internet is doing the job quite fiercely.

The tens of thousands of pirated copies seeded before the game hit retail, should have told them something to begin with...

Instead of trying to convert pirates (or consumers made into pirates) they just try to prevent them from doing the deed. This, in some form or another, has been going on since before recorded history. The software industry (games, specifically) just never studied their history, it seems (no one ever wins.)

Re:How is this a compromise?

[insomniac8400]

What exactly does calling them on the phone do to stop piracy? People will just lie on the phone to get the activation. All they have to do is say they reinstalled windows for blah blah blah reason. What if you reinstall windows every couple of months? Are they really going to eventually tell you no when you tell them you reinstalled windows and you need another activation? If not, there is no point to put this restriction in the game. If so, their activation limit basically is giving them a way to ban your use of the game for any reason. In the end there is not one good reason for this kind of activation limit.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gametap? they have torment.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

SoaSE has a CD key and is also widely available (with crack) on P2P networks - and it's not even a high-profile game. Comparing a high-profile, widely-marketed game like Spore, to an indie, obscure game that no one but strategy gaming geeks has heard of like SoaSE, and saying "look, both Game A and Game B sold some copies, and both are available on P2P, so DRM did nothing!" is a useless comparison since you're not quantifying anything. It also completely throws out the argument that people pirate because of DRM, which is obviously untrue.

Funnily enough, what pirates say and what pirates do aren't the same thing.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Renraku]

Easy fix for this.

Legislate that all authentication mechanisms like this be phased out if the company is going under, or face serious consequences, like full refunds to EVERYONE who bought the game, even if it were ten years ago. This will be complied with when a few people are forced into homelessness forever due to 100% garnishment of wages from what equates to THEFT from everyone who bought it.

Its not hard to do. They could patch it away, set up a fake auth-server within the runtime file, pay another company to run their auth server (it could be very small deal, a server with a basic challenge-response-auth setup)

In fact, crackers do it all the time when they write their cracks. There's very little difference between a CD check and an off-system authentication anyway, in terms of coding.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[postmortem]

... that is only in Microsoft DRM world. I was victim of Creative's policy of three installs on a single machine. Fourth time - " your key has expired"

Re:How is this a compromise?

[SanityInAnarchy]

What they should do is be honest and describe the limitations in the box.

No, what they should do is stop fucking over their customers.

Who's up for organizing a similar protest around Red Alert 3? I would like to think that we won't accept the "just throw 'em a bone" strategy.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[rtb61]

I rather just buy a different game from a more reasonable game publisher. There are just some many games out there that fussing over one or letting a publisher get away with stealing your rights to a game you have purchased, simply is not worth the hassle, limited installs, for me the game no longer exists but, I really do appreciate the gaming community keeping everyone informed of the hidden theft of purchase rights.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Zebai]

I think we will see a much more active protest against RA3 than Spore. Spore was hyped, anticipated by a huge audience enough so that protestors will be dwarfed by sales. RA does not have such a huge fanbase to rely upon they have to rely on fans of the previous versions and I imagine a 3rd edition to a game thats "old" is not going to overcome the DRM protest.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[totally bogus dude]

Leaving aside the fact that pirated versions will be fixed so as not to require "activation" in the first place, it's fairly logical. Presumably the person on the support line will request the serial number as well as other details (e.g. your name or, the city you live in). If they also check it against a database of issued serial numbers, you wouldn't be able to just use a keygen. So every serial number that gets leaked to the "pirate community" can activate at most 3 copies of the game; and then maybe another 3 assuming poor communication amongst the people who allow manual activation over the phone. By that time the serial would be flagged as a pirated one.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[TheSpoom]

And this is a prime reason why we skip the middleman and just go to The Pirate Bay anyway, since we'll inevitably end up there later when the DRM gets too annoying.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Benaiah]

Exactly.
They customers wrote shit reviews for spore, and this is no fucking different. 3 vs 5 is not the problem. Even if it was a more reasonable 10 times, its still telling us the consumer that we are not trusted. And they want to shaft us out of value. Are we buying a product or a temporary license?

The kind of shit these companies try to get away with just wouldn't fly in any other market. If you buy a Car from GM you can only fill the tank at BP or you have the engine wont start. Buy a vacuum cleaner, and it will only work in the house that you first plugged it into. Try it elsewhere and you have to get it factory reset first. This costs $10 for the privilege. Its stupid. We can all see it. Why cant they?

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love if one of my old games stopped working because of an unavailable activation server. I would immediately file a small court claim against the (possibly new) copyright owner and ask for a full refund. I still would not be able to play the game once more, but at least I would get my money back.

BTW, most of my old games don't work anymore, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with activation and protection...

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Bacon Bits]

Of course they have motivation to give a damn. In spite of all this short-term thinking that pervades modern media business, if you piss off your customers or produce a shit product, people will not buy it.

I'm not buying a game with time lock on it. Or a countdown meter. Or anything like that. I have a hard enough time using Steam, which is convenient, cheap, offers services to go with the games, and offers games not available in stores. It's all but directly better than a pressed disc and I still hesitate to buy from it because Valve going under means I lose all my games.

I will not buy Spore. I will not buy C&C Red Alert 3 either. I already made the mistake of buying BioShock. Fool me once, EA. There's a lot of games out there. Nothing is an absolute "must play" anymore. The market is too big, and my library of games is too large. I can go back and play any of a hundred other games. Spore isn't so revolutionary that I'm willing to deal with SecuROM.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the argument that people pirate because of DRM, which is obviously untrue."

If you were to really dig into this issue, you'd find that there are many, MANY people out there who had every intention of plunking down $50 (or whatever) for Spore but turned right around and pirated it due solely to the overly-restrictive DRM. *raises hand*

Spore was available for download on torrent sites around a week before it hit the store shelves. That's nothing new, happens all the time with DVDs and games. I saw Spore available on a daily basis, yet I purposefully didn't download it -- and had zero intent to download it -- until the news about the repressive DRM hit the web. After I heard about that, I made the decision that there was no way in hell I'd reward EA with even 1 red cent for their blatantly anti-consumer behavior and acted accordingly.

What's amusing is that you scolded people for comparing the real-world realities of Game A sales to Game B sales and then performed an abrupt reversal to use that exact same point to try and make your case.

Your argument is demonstrably false. Just ask people, they'll likely talk your ear off on the subject.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Pofy]

>Legislate that all authentication mechanisms like this be phased
>out if the company is going under, or face serious consequences,
>like full refunds to EVERYONE who bought the game, even if it
>were ten years ago.

You seriously suggest that if a company for example goes bankrup they shoould be fined unless they first phase out their activation mechanism? That will work out great I am sure, because such companies has so much extra money they don't know what to do with.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[mollymoo]

Why do you equate zero tolerance of crappy software with pirating that same software? to me, zero tolerance means using some other software instead.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's just another excuse to help justify your criminal activity to yourself and others. Face it: if it wasn't DRM, it would have been the price was too high, or the demo wasn't long enough, or you didn't want to have to spend 3 seconds putting the disk in, or the colors on the box were wrong, or - get this - the game was poor quality."

That's just plain untrue AND YOU KNOW IT (or you should, after so many people have directly stated it both anonymously and publicly). It would be nice if you faced this topic with the same intellectual honesty that you are demanding of others. That means not putting words in their mouths or assigning intent to their purposes which you can't factually back up, and which are actually being directly contradicted here on this very page and elsewhere.

Speaking of phenomenal immorality: you and others like you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest on this issue, and that puts you on the same level or even below someone who steals a game as far as I'm concerned.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[H3g3m0n]

I also very much doubt the EA help desk is going to respond to "I brought it 2nd hand." in any circumstance. I also get the feeling "I wanted to see if it worked on Linux under Wine, then I tried Cedega and CrossOver and now I want to try XP and Vista" will get you very far either.

Also this is hardly an easing of the DRM due to the protests, its exactly the same as it was going to be *BEFOURE* Spore was released (then again Slashdot is slower to get news than Digg/Reddit), back when there was only some limited grumbling about the DRM. RA was already going to be 5 installs and Spore doesn't require the CD either, the only difference with the Spore system is 2 more installs, that is hardly a major change.

Since Spore release and since that RA announcement there has been heaps more consumer backlash over the system with many, many people pirating it to spite the DRM and several Digg/Reddit front pages.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Dan541]

Piracy is the solution to this problem.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Firethorn]

Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) taking this passive-aggressive route, why not contact EA directly and say "Hey, I bought this game, I like it, but I can't deal with these bullshit restrictions." That way you make your opinion known unambiguously without having to rely on their interpretation of pirating information.

How about a massive shrinkwrap refund protest? Buy the game, pay attention to the shrinkwrap EULA, find out that the store won't take returns on opened software, demand a refund from EA. Sue in small claims court if necessary. 'Sir, EA placed excessive restrictions on my game that was only revealed once I opened the package; making it not worth the $50 I paid for it and at which point the store won't take returns. I want my $50 back from EA, because they're the ones that caused the problem.'

What this fixes: Doesn't cost the store money, costs EA money because of their EULA and restrictions, much more than what their profit would have been(they're effectively paying the store's costs and profit as well).

NOTE: I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if this will work. A lot of it depends on the court.
NOTE2: Most EULAs specify any court claims go through either moderation or their home turf. The point here is that you REJECT the EULA and want your money back, so you haven't agreed to use their court.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[@madeus]

The suggestion as posed wouldn't work of course, but it would be entirely possible to require all companies releasing software with DRM on it (or media, for that matter) to hand over a tested and proven unlocking mechanism (including private keys) to be held in escrow - most practically to a government body.

The software to unlock the media / keys could be held privately and would be released to the public domain in the event of the company either goes bankrupt or (possibly as a result of being bought) ceased to meet obligations to provide a mechanism for allowing access to already purchased content to be utilized (obviously that would have to be defined by legislation as well).

If you make it illegal to release software/media without first doing this, and force companies who do it to pay the relatively paltry admin fees associated with the cost of running such a program this would protect consumers and boost confidence in DRM'd media.

(I heard this proposed in CNET's Buzz Out Loud a few months ago I think).

This would really be quite straightforward draft as legislation goes (although of course there is some danger as it's an IT project, and you can't trust most governments with them!). The biggest hurdle to this happening is that there are no large bodies interested in pushing such legislation - and the companies who do support strong lobbing organizations don't realize how this could be in their own best interests.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh... I was hoping to transfer it more than once... :-(

Re:How is this a compromise?

[cgenman]

Can we have a DRM bill of rights?

1. DRM will remain invisible to the end user unless they are attempting to pirate the game.

2. The DRM system will be obvious, uninstallable through normal means, and will not make an effort to hide itself.

3. DRM will *never* run when the game is not running. (Performance is bad enough without 40 versions of a poorly-written software running around.)

4. DRM will never fail to authenticate due to the existence of tools with legitimate uses, although the DRM may require said tools be closed before the game will run. The DRM will never alter functionality of your system when not running.

5. DRM will never require the user to call the manufacturer for any reason.

6. Manufacturers are responsible for maintaining their DRM system on the latest version of the operating system for a minimum of 8 years after release.

7. If the DRM does phone home, it will do so without any personal data unrelated to the basic mechanics of managing rights.

8. Phoning home should not exceed once per month, with a one-month window for the player to have an internet connection. "Requires Network Connection To Play" will be prominently featured on the box and all related marketing material.

9. If a network verification server is ever end-of-lifed, the software manufacturer must either universally unlock all software that is no longer being verified or refund the original purchase price for all users.

10. All purchasers of digital downloads will have the right to re-download for up to 8 years after the original purchase. This must include some format which can be archived in a format that can be directly installed (pending verification server, if applicable).

11. All DRM restrictions will be clearly listed on the box and related marketing material in plain english in no less than 9 point font.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I endorse it, but piracy exists for a reason.

Are you trying to imply that DRM is the cause of piracy? Really?
 
Maybe if all DRM were eliminated all piracy would disappear as well. Just like piracy never happened with DRM-free music.

If you don't like DRM don't buy OR pirate the game. It's the only way to stop it. When movie/music/game companies see thousands of people downloading their product, making DRM less restrictive isn't their first thought. And why would it be?

Quit trying to pretend that you're fighting some noble fight by downloading a video game.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Sj0]

I dunno. I've recently paid for a number of games. I wouldn't pay for Spore, Bioshock, or now Red Alert 3.

The cost is the same, but the people who made the games I did pay for didn't piss me off.

Don't piss off customers. It doesn't help you make money.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Pofy]

This seems like one would in effect require anyone that has some "lock" on media to provide for more or less a backdoor to the software. As for keeping it private until needed, I just see far to big of a chance that it will end up as a "oops, we could not find it" or "sorry, seems it doesn't really work". Especially in case of someone buying out a company as it could be seen as a big cut in the value of what one buy.

Heck, not even in cases were there is no bankrupcy or buyout companies simply close down such authetification systems. So far it seems to mostly be in the music business. But I think it shows that there will be many cases were they won't care about unlocking or helping out old customers. The idea is nice but I can't see how it will really work. And when one starts to think of it in a more international way, it will work even less I think.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[thepotoo]

Since EA likes to blacklist "pirate" MAC's and IP's, I really wouldn't register with them at all.

(This coming from someone who was blacklisted after hosting a LAN party. Presumably someone had a pirated game on their computer or something, but I took the fall for it.)

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, everyone buy Spore, and install it, wipe the machine and install it again. Repeat til out of activations then continue installing and wiping, calling EA each time and harassing them to the point where they get the point.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the pirated version was available before retail worked out of the box, and required no activation or any serial.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Chyeld]

And even more direct, I really doubt that in even three years, if were to attempt call in for more activations, you'd be able to.

EA is NOT a company that has a proven track record on long term support. What they do have a proven track record of is a number of 'fire and forget' games.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[jp10558]

The worst part is spore isn't revolutionary at all. In fact, it's a huge dissapointment to me. NOTE: I've only played 3 of 5 levels/parts of the game.

It isn't a simulation like say, Sim City was. It's not even really like The Sims. It's been 3 minigames so far:
1) PackMan
2) CRPG style grind
3) Weak RTS similar to a stripped down WarCraft 1.

I can't imagine what the later 2 stages really are, but I'm mostly bored. The worst part is I've spent maybe 6 hrs to be almost done with Stage 3 (and what's holding me back is being unable to beat a basically equivelent in all ways enemy to advance).

Where is the simulation??? Where is me being suprised? If I wanted some funky pack of half assed games that have been done before, I'd just get one of those combo packs...

Re:How is this a compromise?

[armareum]

I'm recommending to everyone I know that they should buy it and pirate it at the same time.

That's just one more person who EA can say were not negatively affected by the repressive DRM on the product - justification for keeping the DRM just as restrictive on future products. If DRM is supposed to stop piracy, then any indication that DRM increases piracy is what EA need to be shown.

Just don't buy DRM games - it's the only message they understand.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

You CAN install Spore as many times as you like on the same set of hardware

Got a source for that? I don't believe that it matters whether you install it again on the same hardware or not. It doesn't revoke the previous installation, so the new installation counts against the 3 allowed installations.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

Sure, and after reading a few of those and realizing that it's impossible to make DRM comply with them and still have even the slightest effectiveness, it becomes pretty obvious that the Gamer's Bill of Rights proposed by Brad Wardell of Stardock, which specifies no DRM, is the only good answer.

Now he has stated that he might be open to very limited DRM, such as a scheme that lasts only for the first month after release and is then removed. But essentially the idea is that DRM is a bad thing that hurts customers, and should therefore be done away with.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

You say SoaSE was an obscure title, and yet even though it had no DRM, it still sold over half a million copies? Seems like the vast majority of potential customers for such an obscure title must have paid their money for it even though they could have downloaded it for free. How does that help your argument?

Re:How is this a compromise?

[josteos]

A few years ago I bought a game to play with my son. We'd played the demo and thoroughly enjoyed it, so I went out & bought the retail title.

Turns out there was a known defect in the retail release (now with more SecureROM!) which caused the DRM to fail 100% of the time. The published knew about the problem, but instead of recalling the product from the shelves they allowed CompUSA to sell a known defective game. The publisher very replaced it with a new disc once I discovered their knowledgebase entry on the error message and called their help desk, however I did visit an unofficial patch provider so that my son & I could play the game we had purchased. The unofficial patch wasn't 100% stable, so I rolled back to the new disc as soon as it arrived.

-1 pt for for the major publisher allowing known defective software to be sold
+1 pt for them handling it promptly once I complained
+1 pt for the cd-crack which let us play our legally purchased game until the new disk arrived

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Vexor]

It's confirmed by Spore Cust Service that it's FIVE times.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Baricom]

There are alternatives that are similar. Some advocate making the use of DRM an implicit waiver of copyright protections. One could arrange for a de-DRM patch by requiring the game manufacturer to place it in escrow with the Library of Congress as part of the registration. There's room for creative ideas.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

True. Imagine how many thousands more it WOULD have made, had it not been pirated. Oh, by the way, what WAS the excuse for it being so? Didn't like the fact that it had a CD key? Price was too high? Really, I'd like to know. Seems like there's always something.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just plain untrue AND YOU KNOW IT (or you should, after so many people have directly stated it both anonymously and publicly).

Exacly. And as I already said, pirates will say anything to justify their actions, that's the point. Take DRM away, it's still pirated. Provide a longer demo, it's still pirated. Give it out for free on your website, it's still pirated (see: Radiohead debacle). Perhaps you've never heard of the saying "actions speak louder than words"? Give pirates what they want, and they still pirate it; I don't think there's any other way you could interpret those actions. You'd have to be either completely inept not to see it, or you're scrambling for excuses along with them.

So...I'm guessing you don't have locks on your doors then? Because you know, they're not really stopping anybody. If thieves want to break in, they will. So why have them? Aren't they just more of a nuisance for you? What if you lock yourself out? Are you a masochist or something?

By the way, I like the way you turn "you're wrong because I say so!" into "and that makes you worse than a criminal!". Priceless. You should be a politician.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine. I don't have any problem with people not purchasing the game. If you want to boycott it out of some protest, by all means, that's your right to do so. What really gets me is people who, instead of actually boycotting, pirate the stuff. These people are doing nothing but helping justify the use of DRM.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[oracle128]

Mr AC, I have a question for you. Why did you pirate Spore?

Re:How is this a compromise?

[cgenman]

I actually phrased it very carefully to allow for Steam, and that has been a very effective DRM.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[gravis777]

I totally agree. Current games installed on my system - Bioshock, Alice (released in 2000 or 2001), Harry Potter Quidditch World Cup (released around 2004 I think) and King's Quest 6 (released around 1992 I think). Bioshock alone has been reinstalled about 4 times, and I have had it less than a year. This is due to me effing up Windows, and not an issue with Windows itself. I love to Eff around, trying to see what works and what doesn't, and this requires me to have more reinstallations than other people sometimes.

Alice has been reinstalled easily over 10 times. Harry Potter Quidditch probably arouond 6 or 7. I do not even want to think about how many times I have reinstalled King's Quest, although I will admit I am having to currently run it in an emulator.

Don't even ask how many hacks I have had to download over the years to get Duke Nukem 3D to work in different OSes, but I can imagine that I have had probably over 20 installs of that.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[deezy]

I totally agree with you. I know spores is getting alot hype but I really don't see why the game is all that good but I'll check it out when I go and see my cousin which says this game is better than WOW. Guess its time for me to check it out.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Sj0]

Oh, I'd pirate it, but it doesn't really sound like a great game.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

I actually phrased it very carefully to allow for Steam, and that has been a very effective DRM.

It's been fairly unobtrusive DRM, which is why I use it. I don't think you could really call it effective, since every game available on Steam has been cracked pretty quickly. There have been problems with people getting "permission" from the system to play their games when the servers get overloaded due to the release of a very popular game. HL2 and Bioshock both come to mind. So it doesn't always succeed in staying out of the way.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

True. Imagine how many thousands more it WOULD have made, had it not been pirated. Oh, by the way, what WAS the excuse for it being so? Didn't like the fact that it had a CD key? Price was too high? Really, I'd like to know. Seems like there's always something.

That's exactly the point. Maybe it would have made a lot more. Maybe it wouldn't have. Nobody knows, and hardly anyone really seems to want to find out anyway.

But like Stardock says, you can't worry about the people who aren't buying your game, because they aren't your customers. Asking what the reason was is just dumb. If there were thousands of people downloading it, then they each have their own reasons. You think there's just going to be one or two reasons for everyone? Maybe they just wanted to see if they'd like the game before they spend the money for it. Maybe they want to make sure it runs well on their system. Maybe they just don't have the money. There's probably a lot of different reasons.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[cgenman]

True. In an industry where time-to-crack is frequently days before release, "successful" DRM is measured by impact on paying customers, rather than impact on sales. It's successful if sufficient to make the bad business bureaucrats go away without crippling sales. Also, it prevents casual copying and is sweetened with additional functionality. All in all, now that it isn't a buggy mess anymore, steam is a pretty good compromise.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Asking what the reason was is just dumb

I agree. It's stupid, because pirates are just going to lie about it anyway (whether consciously or subconsciously). You might as well ask a murderer why they killed their victim. I guarantee you 99% of the time they will give out some reason why they did it that, to them, justifies their actions. I'd even bet some of their reasons are better than the kinds of reasons that pirates have.

Of course there's going to be a bunch of different reasons. Problem is, none of them are ever any good. Saying that piracy doesn't matter because the pirates aren't your customer is akin to letting people shoplift because they aren't your customer. Not to mention the fact that, out of all the reasons you listed, all of them clearly ARE the customers, because they wanted the game. I know it sounds funny, but generally, when you want something, and you get it, that would make you the customer. Whether you get it legally or fraudulently is the matter at hand here, and quite clearly there is no valid excuse for piracy.

Let's take your examples:
"Maybe they just wanted to see if they'd like the game before they spend the money for it."
It has a demo. And reviews, movies, word of mouth, friends who've played it...
"Maybe they want to make sure it runs well on their system."
It has a demo.
"Maybe they just don't have the money."
Then they don't get the game. Just because you can't afford something, doesn't give you right to take it. This applies to anything that isn't a basic human right (food, water, health care - and even then, there are usually systems in place that ensure your access to these without becoming a common thief), but it especially applies to luxury items like video games. Maybe when the UN human rights charter has a line "everyone deserves the right to own video games", then "I am poor" might be a valid excuse for piracy. If, of course, you were to assume that in the world in which this charter is drafted, there is no such thing as free or open source games.

But until such time, these "reasons" to me sound more like a bunch of excuses that a pirate uses to justify their actions, rather than having to deal with the fact that they're criminals, wouldn't you agree?

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

It's stupid, because pirates are just going to lie about it anyway (whether consciously or subconsciously).

Actually, a lot of pirates are quite candid about the reasons they do it. They know those reasons aren't justifications. But they are going to do it anyway. Kinda like the guy that speeds on the highway. He knows it's against the law, but he probably won't get caught so he'll do it anyway.

Saying that piracy doesn't matter because the pirates aren't your customer is akin to letting people shoplift because they aren't your customer.

Here we go again equating physical property with imaginary property. The analogy doesn't work. Never has. That's why we use two different sets of law for them.

Not to mention the fact that, out of all the reasons you listed, all of them clearly ARE the customers, because they wanted the game.

Just because they wanted the game for whatever reason doesn't mean they were willing to pay for it. If they couldn't download it, then they'd probably just move on. Maybe some percentage of them might buy it. The rest won't, so those were never going to be sales.

It has a demo. And reviews, movies, word of mouth, friends who've played it...

Demo, what demo?

It has a demo.

Even if there were a demo, demos don't really represent the final product when it comes to system requirements.

But until such time, these "reasons" to me sound more like a bunch of excuses that a pirate uses to justify their actions, rather than having to deal with the fact that they're criminals, wouldn't you agree?

Sure they're excuses. The point is that it doesn't matter what the excuse is. Some people will take what they can get for free, and others will pay for it. You can't really control it so, like Wardell was saying you focus on those that are willing to buy your product and you make sure you cater to them. That's how they succeed. That's why even a niche title like Sins, that cost less than a million to make, can sell half a million copies or more and make a nice big profit.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like the guy that speeds on the highway. He knows it's against the law, but he probably won't get caught so he'll do it anyway.

And imagine the farce we would have if there were groups of people encouraging speeding and screaming bloody murder every time someone got punished for being caught doing so. Kinda like we have here for piracy.

Demo, what demo?

http://files.filefront.com/Sins+of+a+Solar+Empire+Demo/;9861753;/fileinfo.html

Here we go again equating physical property with imaginary property.

Analogy != equate. That's why it's called an analogy, and not "the thing we're talking about".

The analogy doesn't work. Never has. That's why we use two different sets of law for them.

No, we use different sets of laws because media has the unique disadvantage of being able to be reproduced at little to no cost, thus there being no natural mechanism in which to prevent the fraudulent acquirement of such products. Thus the primary remuneration value of the product, being an artistic work, is not in the constant creation of more physical goods, but in the assurance of future sales to recoup costs (time and money) that have already been invested in the development of said product. If software was as easy to design and invest in as, say, making a table; and like a table, the primary value of software was in the materials and labour (skills) required to craft each individual creation which was only of use to one customer at a time, we wouldn't have this problem.

It's unfortunately that pirates willingly ignore, or are simply too stupid to understand, the idea that content creators sell their stuff and want to control its distribution in order to recoup costs already invested; instead choosing to believe that "oh well, they've already created it, so it's not like they're losing anything if I download it". It makes about as much sense logically and ethically as getting someone to build you a new patio, then refusing to pay for it afterwards because, hey, they've already invested in the work, so it's not like they're losing anything more by not being paid, and besides if they wanted to be paid then they shouldn't have done the work in the first place.

Just because they wanted the game for whatever reason doesn't mean they were willing to pay for it.

So in other words, they pirate because they want stuff for free, and any reason they give other than that is bullshit.

If they couldn't download it, then they'd probably just move on.

So you agree: we need more DRM.

Even if there were a demo, demos don't really represent the final product when it comes to system requirements.

Name one game where this is true to any non-negligible degree.

That's why even a niche title like Sins, that cost less than a million to make, can sell half a million copies or more and make a nice big profit.

Even though it has a CD key. Which, last time I checked, was lumped into the same group as "those evil DRM schemes", not preventing piracy and only hurting legitimate customers.

Seems to me that you're doing a lot of arguing for someone that, like me, recognises the fact that pirates are liars and DRM is a necessity.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[mmalove]

Integrity? In our moment of graft?

THIS IS MADNESS!

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

And imagine the farce we would have if there were groups of people encouraging speeding and screaming bloody murder every time someone got punished for being caught doing so. Kinda like we have here for piracy.

They aren't screaming because someone got caught or punished. It's because the penalties are so out of proportion to the infringement. Slapping someone with a $220,000 fine for "making available" 24 songs is just ridiculous. Maybe if we saw penalties for white collar crimes coming anywhere near these proportions, people might not feel they were so unfair.

I stand corrected on the demo. Didn't remember Sins having a demo, but then I bought it on release day, so I never had reason to play the demo.

No, we use different sets of laws because media has the unique disadvantage of being able to be reproduced at little to no cost, thus there being no natural mechanism in which to prevent the fraudulent acquirement of such products. Thus the primary remuneration value of the product, being an artistic work, is not in the constant creation of more physical goods, but in the assurance of future sales to recoup costs (time and money) that have already been invested in the development of said product. If software was as easy to design and invest in as, say, making a table; and like a table, the primary value of software was in the materials and labour (skills) required to craft each individual creation which was only of use to one customer at a time, we wouldn't have this problem.

There's also the little issue of the completely different basis for "intellectual property" law versus real property law. IP law exists to provide temporary control of IP in order to achieve publicly desirable ends, such as the creation of more works which will become freely available to the public after the term expires. It's not because it was believed that people should be able to own ideas. There was just a recognized benefit to allowing that temporary monopoly.

While you may not see the difference, it is there. The main problem with IP law these days is that the IP industry has managed to cut the public almost completely out of the bargain. So, we end up with a public that doesn't see the benefit of giving these people and corporations perpetual monopolies over IP when we get nothing from the bargain. Thus people lose respect for a corrupt system and chaos ensues. The industry acting only in their own self-interest has led to the public doing the same. Big surprise.

So in other words, they pirate because they want stuff for free, and any reason they give other than that is bullshit.

You can polarize it all you want, it doesn't make you correct or make the situation exactly the same for everyone. Some people pirate a game and then go out and buy it. I consider that to be different than those that pirate it, play it all they want, and never buy it. But whatever. Oversimplifying the problem will not help solve it.

So you agree: we need more DRM.

I think we've seen that DRM doesn't hurt pirates because the version they get bypasses the DRM. It certainly does hurt paying customers, especially when you go with the "more DRM is better" theory. That leads to crap like Starforce which probably did a lot more to encourage piracy than it did to prevent it.

Name one game where this is true to any non-negligible degree.

Sins is a pretty good example. There's a big difference in processing power needed for a small, very limited game with only a couple enemies like you get with the demo, and a real game that runs to the end and can have dozens or hundreds of planets and thousands of ships in play. I experienced some major issues myself when the battles got big. Wasn't much of a problem after I upgraded, but there was no way to know that it would bog down like that if I had just played a short, small map only partway through.

Iro

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

While you may not see the difference, it is there.

Oh, I can see the difference. The difference is, after a certain point in time, creators of artistic works (ie goods where the primary value is in the design and conception, not the production - aka intellectual property) are forced to stop being allowed to make money from their works. An even bigger problem is, certain people feel that this time frame should be zero. Or negative 4 days, in the case of Spore. Whereas there is no such equivalent law for the sale of physical property, eg "you can sell your table for whatever price you want, but after xx years, you cannot sell it for any more than the cost of the resources consumed". Problem is, even then, the game creators are worse off because they don't get a say in whether their works are continuously distributed or not. It wouldn't be quite the same (and totally unfair) if this scenario meant the table maker was forced to create more tables at cost-of-resources for the rest of his life, but one cannot say that the two creators are equally compensated when they clearly are not.

Some people pirate a game and then go out and buy it. I consider that to be different than those that pirate it, play it all they want, and never buy it. But whatever.

Thus, they contribute to piracy statistics and make it worse for themselves and everyone else, justifying the increased use of DRM. And, they undercut the whole idea of demos, reviews, word of mouth, socialising, marketing/promotion, "buyer beware"...I don't see why these "temporary" pirates, if they really do in fact exist (and aren't just more lies) have so much trouble with such concepts. Intellectual property businesses operate on the assumption that they invest in something good, they will get returns when it hits retail. Not 2 weeks, a month, a year, 10 years after retail when the pirates have completed their use of the product and, as an afterthought, may or may not decide to actually take the initiative to send some form of compensation to them (but not before the product has dropped dramatically in price from lacking sales, and the business has fallen apart and can no longer push patches or value-add updates to the users to resolve any minor qualms they may have had with it).

Oversimplifying the problem will not help solve it.

Nor will overcomplicating the problem. And especially nor will defending all pirates, no matter what reason they have.

I think we've seen that DRM doesn't hurt pirates because the version they get bypasses the DRM. It certainly does hurt paying customers, especially when you go with the "more DRM is better" theory.

I'll ask you the same question I asked our anonymous friend (and got no response from): Do you have locks on your door? Why? If someone wants to break in, they will, locks or not. Seems all they are good for is impeding on your convenience and hurting you. What if there's a fire? What if you get locked out?

And what about the "better DRM" theory? Would that qualify? Because to me it seems like, while there really isn't any legitimate reason to hate the concept of DRM, there is plenty of reason to dislike certain flawed implementations of it. Maybe the people who combat this by declaring war on all DRM believe it should have worked 100% flawlessly since day 1, despite the fallacy that the expectation of perfection itself brings.

Or, looking at it from a completely different angle: DRM wouldn't be so intrusive if people stopped trying to circumvent it. And it wouldn't exist at all if pirates didn't exist. I think an interesting solution to the problem is this; pirates believe they are acting morally. Or, at least, more morally than the creators/implementers of DRM. Yet they expect companies to take the initiative an

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

The difference is, after a certain point in time, creators of artistic works (ie goods where the primary value is in the design and conception, not the production - aka intellectual property) are forced to stop being allowed to make money from their works. An even bigger problem is, certain [slashdot.org] people [slashdot.org] feel that this time frame should be zero.

That's called backlash. It's what happens when someone gets too greedy and vastly overreaches in taking from others, namely the public in this case. Copyright law has gone beyond excessive and crossed well into transparently corrupt. Hence the lack of respect for it by such a huge number of people. Scaling it back to something on the order of the original term, say 15 years, and cutting back the more egregious terms of the DMCA would re-establish the balance of the system.

Intellectual property businesses operate on the assumption that they invest in something good, they will get returns when it hits retail. Not 2 weeks, a month, a year, 10 years after retail when the pirates have completed their use of the product and, as an afterthought, may or may not decide to actually take the initiative to send some form of compensation to them

You know, that's what I've been thinking too. Which is one reason I just can't understand why they need 90+ year copyright terms. Again, we're back to the overreaching versus balance issue. They can't make their money in 15 years? Only a minute fraction of works makes any significant money beyond that time.

Or, looking at it from a completely different angle: DRM wouldn't be so intrusive if people stopped trying to circumvent it.

There will always be people trying to circumvent it. And so pirates will not be the one's being inconvenienced or having their systems damaged by intrusive DRM. That's just for those lucky paying customers.

Yet they expect companies to take the initiative and back down on DRM first. What would you say to pirates being the ones to back down first? Surely they would jump on the chance to prove once and for all they they really do have the better ethics. And yet, this hasn't happened, and probably won't ever. What does this tell you about a pirate's ethics?

Not a lot, but it does tell me that you're seriously not understanding things if you think that pirates are some kind of organized group that can make decisions together. WTF? Even just in the U.S. there are likely millions of pirates, each with their own reasons/excuses and motivations and morals. They are incapable of acting as a group. They each act as individuals. The fact that so many individuals are breaking the law probably says something significant about the law. Maybe that it's not wise to let industry lobbyists write the law to begin with.

The industry is a much more focused and cohesive group. They are the only side capable of taking action in a concerted way.

But these are reasons not to buy the game, not to pirate it. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I simply cannot make the connection between "these are my reasons to not buy it" and "so that's why I pirated it instead". At least not without it inevitably resolving to "because I wanted to play it, but didn't want to pay for it". Maybe you have the explanation for this invisible link. Do you?

I think it's simply the inevitable backlash against corrupt laws that hand out practically endless monopolies on what is essentially just information, combined with business models that are outdated and il-equipped to deal with evolving technologies. Some companies are dealing pretty well with the changes (e.g. Valve, Stardock) and others are dealing very poorly with them (e.g. EA). I think things need a major overhaul.

But these are reasons not to buy the game, not to pirate it. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I simply cannot make the connection between "these are m

Re:How is this a compromise?

[arkane1234]

Renting means you hand money in increments during ownership and hand the item back after a certain amount of time.
With software, ever since the whole purchase thing started happening, you buy the license to use it.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to wait until you answer the "do your doors have locks?" question until I respond. Thanks.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

I'd like to wait until you answer the "do your doors have locks?" question until I respond. Thanks.

Yes my doors have locks, which are intended to deter people from casually entering my home. I think the difference is obvious in that this is a physical access issue, whereas DRM is fighting a battle against information access. If there were infinite copies of my home available for anyone to test their lock-picking skills against, I'm quite sure they could access it without much difficulty. Then they could share what they find by offering unlocked copies of my house and everything in it to anyone that wanted it.

Do you see why the typical DRM scheme is useless? The locks are available for anyone to break at their leisure and share the results. Why bother with locks when they make no difference to the final outcome, except to piss off and inconvenience the people that would actually buy your product?

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you win! Yes, you can safely defend your home because the laws of physics means you only have one to defend. Content creators don't have such a liberty. But that's alright, we don't really care about them anyway.

Back to the drawing board:

That's called backlash. It's what happens when someone gets too greedy and vastly overreaches in taking from others, namely the public in this case.

Like DRM is a backlash to piracy. It's what happens when someone gets too greedy and vastly overreaches in taking from others, namely the public in this case (that is, the public doing the taking from the creators).

You know, that's what I've been thinking too. Which is one reason I just can't understand why they need 90+ year copyright terms. Again, we're back to the overreaching versus balance issue. They can't make their money in 15 years? Only a minute fraction of works makes any significant money beyond that time.

And yet, I don't see pirates waiting any length of time in order to pirate something.

There will always be people trying to circumvent it.

And these people would be...? (hint: today we're meant to be talking like them).

Not a lot, but it does tell me that you're seriously not understanding things if you think that pirates are some kind of organized group that can make decisions together.
...
The industry is a much more focused and cohesive group. They are the only side capable of taking action in a concerted way.

Yeah, and I bet all those Amazon ratings were just completely honest, entirely coincidental reviews. Seems as though you're having your cake and eating it too here: you don't think consumers are able to congregate and form an adequate form of protest against the gaming industry giant, so your solution is for them to...congregate and protest against the gaming industry giant? Illegally, no less?

I think it's simply the inevitable backlash against corrupt laws that hand out practically endless monopolies on what is essentially just information

Yes, it's just information, and it's just so easy to come by. I don't see why pirates don't just go and make their own games if it's that easy, rather than continuously break the law to get existing ones.

combined with business models that are outdated and il-equipped to deal with evolving technologies.

Business models like investing in a product you believe in and hoping the consumers like it enough to compensate you afterwards, but instead having them take it as the please? Besides, I really don't think you answered the question here at all. How does "not buy" in any way equate to "take"?

Yes, because the game is advertised as having epic battles and such, yet it doesn't say anywhere that you won't be able to experience those epic battles if you only have the minimum or recommended system specs. This would lead people to believe that they can play the game to its fullest, albeit at lower resolution and detail settings. That's sadly not the case.

Perhaps if they were incapable of thought or common sense.

Incorrect analogy. We're not talking about consistency, or whether the game will degrade over the long term. To modify your analogy, it would be more like them letting you test drive it on the back roads at 45mph, yet telling you that if you take it out on the highway, you could clear 100mph easily. Yet when you get it out on the highway you can only hit about 75mph before the car starts shaking violently, forcing you to slow back down. The game doesn't perform as advertised under the minimum or even recommended system specs.

Or more likely, he told you the car could go up to 200mph, yet road law permits you from ever actually driving that fast, and he fails to tell you. Whose fault now?

Th

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

Well, you've obviously decided that pirates are some kind of secret society with their own goals and plans that they can put into action at a moment's notice.

How many 1-star Spore reviews did Amazon get? A couple thousand? If that's the best coordination that pirates can muster, then you're giving them far too much credit for being organized.

Or more likely, he told you the car could go up to 200mph, yet road law permits you from ever actually driving that fast, and he fails to tell you. Whose fault now?

No, it's nothing like that. The game is incapable of the advertised performance with the specified hardware requirements. There are no qualifiers in those requirements. Nothing that tells you that you can't experience the whole game. This is hardly uncommon.

By "expanded content" and "expanding demands", I am of course referring to the inevitable situation of "I had 3 units in the demo and it was fine, but now in the full version when I have 3 million units on screen, it slows down? I was duped!"

If the game can't handle its maximum number of units with the minimum or even recommended hardware, then those requirements are too low. You can't expect gamers to guess how much game they're going to get to play based on their hardware. Publishers need to set accurate requirements to play the game.

By the way, your argument makes it impossible for developers to sell a game with unlimited/near-unlimited potential. Or are you saying that they should always place hard limits on every aspect of a game (including resolution, detail, and game content), then choose a minimum set of system requirements which cater towards the maximum fulfilment of all those limits?

Most games have used hard limits. It's perfectly possible to allow for nearly unlimited potential, but there must still be a baseline. You can then allow players to ramp up the limits to meet their system's level of power. Sins mentions nothing about you only being able to play on small maps if you meet the minimum requirements. And if that's the case, then how do we know what the requirements are to play on large maps, or that they are different from small maps?

Why should gamers believe there is a difference? They don't understand game programming. Many games can have large total areas, but are made manageable by the fact that they only load small pieces at a time into memory, or only have to draw to a certain level of detail depending on the view. Customers are in no position to guess at what a game is or should be capable of, or how well it was implemented versus how well it could be implemented. It's up to the publishers to be honest about it.

They have to download the game don't they? Find a crack that works? And they're being offset, because, as you keep claiming, they REALLY wanted to buy the game but for some reason couldn't because it has DRM, forcing them to now download it instead, those poor souls (not even considering the option of not having it at all). That seems inconvenient to me.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I've said repeatedly that there are many reasons why people pirate. Some have no desire at all to purchase the game. Some like to support the developer even though they don't want to deal with the DRM, so they pirate it and buy it too. There are different scenarios and you're being belligerent in your attempts to keep trying to assign one reason to everyone.

Happy now?

You can find a few crazy stories about damn near anything though. They don't prove anything except that some people are nutcases, which we already know. It doesn't change the fact that there are many legitimate problems caused by DRM either. Sony rootkits? Starforce crashes and unplayability?

So in other words, you agree that the whole thing is entirely subjective.

No, I'm saying that there's two types of DRM.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[antdude]

I played the multiplayer beta and wasn't impressed with it as a loyal C&C fan. This will be the first non-expansion C&C game that I won't be getting. DRM and RA3 suck.

Does that Crysis Warhead have this DRM too?

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

The game is incapable of the advertised performance with the specified hardware requirements. There are no qualifiers in those requirements. Nothing that tells you that you can't experience the whole game.

You're absolutely right. Maybe they should include a qualifying word, such as "minimum", which will resolve this problem.

If the game can't handle its maximum number of units with the minimum or even recommended hardware, then those requirements are too low.

And if they specify requirements that can handle the game under its maximum load, with the maximum level of detail, at an infinite resolution, then no one plays the game. Well except for pirates, who have nothing to lose from trying the game on their system even if they don't have an infitely powerful PC to match the infinite requirements. But that's what you want right?

It's perfectly possible to allow for nearly unlimited potential, but there must still be a baseline. You can then allow players to ramp up the limits to meet their system's level of power.

So in other words, the system requirements will be a lie.

Why should gamers believe there is a difference?

For the same reason their sample peanut butter isn't the same size as the retail one is. Common sense, really. It's a great argument for pirates not having common sense or any computer knowledge though, because apparently they can manage to work a P2P client just fine. Though it does seem a bit fallacious that while you claim they'd only pirate the game if they were aware that it may not play well on their system under certain situations; they would only have the insight to double-check this case if they'd already considered the possibility of more complex use of the game impacting on the system usage, which you claim they couldn't possibly have known about.

There are different scenarios and you're being belligerent in your attempts to keep trying to assign one reason to everyone.

I really like how you keep defending criminals. Hey, don't hate rapists! They have lots of reasons why they do it, its unfair to treat them all the same! I'd be more than happy to have each and every pirate treated as individuals in their own civil/criminal trials. Funny thing though, they don't seem to stand up enough for their beliefs to actually admit to it, instead choosing to hind behind a shroud of anonymity. Yeah, sounds real dignified to me, they definitely deserve our respect.

You can find a few crazy stories about damn near anything though. They don't prove anything except that some people are nutcases, which we already know.

Hehe, I love this little argument of yours. "Those are just one-off cases and don't mean anything. I still maintain that my one-off cases in the opposite effect mean something". You should also read this post (no, that's not me), amusingly marked as flamebait, but introduces two fascinating points regarding Starforce (here is a link for the first point).

No, I'm saying that there's two types of DRM. Non-intrusive types like CD keys, and instrusive types that require software installation to allow it to have some level of control over your system.

I like how you use the word "intrusive" as if it had a clear, objective definition.

The less software you're installing, the less chance of problems,

Malware tends to be pretty small and uncomplicated. As do the DRM mechanisms. Yet that doesn't stop people complaining about the things that they wouldn't even notice if some zealous piracy advocate hadn't been on their soapbox spreading FUD about it.

especially when DRM software is designed to prevent your system from letting you run so

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Danse]

I really like how you keep defending criminals. Hey, don't hate rapists! They have lots of reasons why they do it, its unfair to treat them all the same! I'd be more than happy to have each and every pirate treated as individuals in their own civil/criminal trials. Funny thing though, they don't seem to stand up enough for their beliefs to actually admit to it, instead choosing to hind behind a shroud of anonymity. Yeah, sounds real dignified to me, they definitely deserve our respect.

Wow. Ok, I'm done with you. You're either trolling (likely), or just a typical internet fucktard. Have a nice life.

Re:How is this a compromise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well played, sir. It's always easier to label someone a "troll or fucktard" and ignore them, than to admit that you aren't able to counter their superior argument. Thanks for conceding victory though.

We will not compromise

[MindStalker]

No, securerom is a resident program on your computer, I should also not have to get permissions to install more than a few times. Spores limit of one account as well is ridiculous. I will not buy another game with securerom ever.

Re:We will not compromise

[hairyfeet]

Damn,here they go,making sure i won't buy their damned game. Do they have ANY idea how much money we old guys have spent on the C&C games? I bought RA I&II,and C&C:Renegade. Then when I heard about the Decade Pack I went out and bought it since I wouldn't have to fool around and deal with a bunch of discs when I wanted a C&C fix. Now here I was,all jazzed up to buy C&C:RA3,and then they have to do that limited activations crap. There is NO WAY IN HELL I'm going to get on the damned phone and do a little monkey dance for EA just to install something I PAID FOR!!!

I bet the pirates are laughing their asses off at the way EA is screwing themselves and turning off their customers with their limited activation "Secure Starforced Buttraper V2.0". It is like they are saying "Hmmm. Well we left a few customers able to walk after the Spore crap. Lets take something really cherished like C&C and stick it to them hard!". And lets face it: This has NOTHING to do with piracy,NOTHING AT ALL. This is about EA always hating the used game market. If you care anything at all about your right of first sale DO NOT BUY this game!!! I hope EA is happy,as I won't be buying another piece of software from them,I don't care if I found Spore and C&C 3 in the $1.99 bin. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:We will not compromise

[jps25]

Maybe we can download it for free, without the DRM, in 10 years or so.
I would buy it if it was less than 10EUR simply because I have collected all other C&C games, as I am an old geezer just like you who has fallen in love with what Westwood once created.
But like Joy Division once sang, "Love will tear us apart again", it seems this romance is over.

Re:We will not compromise

[Jorophose]

Then do things the right way, and flood their phones telling them they can't install their AIDS on your computer because they've hit their 0 install limit and need to beg YOU to get the game installed on your computer, or you're stealing it the proper way, cracking it, distributing it to all of your friends, and periodically calling them to let them know you're playing the game.

Actually, do that more. Everytime you load up Spore/C&C/MassEffect, call EA and tell them, "hi, I'm playing your game". Bonus points if you let them know you're running a cracked version.

Every time you play.

S'about time you give them twice as much crap.

Re:We will not compromise

[Shihar]

I agree, I think EA is blowing its own foot off. I spend a LOT of money on games. I spend a lot of money on computer games. I am in the process of building a new machine from scratch is basically a gaming computer spawned from hell. I like games.

I also never pirate. The last time I pirated something I was 16. Buying things is quick, easy, and without hassle. Pirating on the other hand is a pain in the ass, time consuming, and risky. My time is worth more than what it takes to pirate. I have a large disposable income because I don't spend my money on cars, HD TVs, or anything like that. I'll buy a game if I have any interest it and I won't feel bad if I decide I don't like it. I have never resold a game. I am the perfect guy to sell games too.

I won't be buying Spore, C&C3, or anything with this absurd DRM. I am not going to have a game install crippleware onto my computer, and then limit how many times I can install games. I have reinstalled Starcraft, Fallout, and Knight of the Old Republic more times than I can count. Hell, I will burn through three installs in under a year. I will easily kill 5 installs in a year when I make/buy a new computer.

So, EA can continue down this path, but I won't go with them. It isn't going to stop piracy (as Spore has shown). If anything, it will increase piracy as the pirated version is the non-crippled version. So it won't stop piracy, but it will stop someone like me who merrily blows a few hundred dollars a month on games from buying.

Re:We will not compromise

[calmofthestorm]

It's too bad; we've seen they're listening and they're willing to compromise. Sadly this is too little too late. At this point I'm going to have to demand full disclosure on label, no spyware and no viruses. EA has a lot to do to re-earn my trust after Bioshock, Spore, etc.

I still play their games from the 80s on my Commodore 64.

Re:We will not compromise

[calmofthestorm]

To clarify, I mention Bioshock despite it not being from EA as it also uses SecuROM. I should probably have said that the industry as a whole and/or securom has a lot of trust to regain.

Re:We will not compromise

[nawcom]

Maybe we can download it for free, without the DRM, in 10 years or so.

Actually, you can probably download it for free without the DRM issues about 3 days before its official release date because someone in some big cracking group has connections. If not, then wait one hour after its official release; you will see it on TPB.

Sad, but true. The release of Spore may have caused people to wake the fuck up about what Securom is.

Re:We will not compromise

[jps25]

Yes I know, but I don't intend to pirate a game I don't plan on buying even if I liked it.
I find it morally wrong to pirate something and keeping it if I like it instead of buying it and showing my gratitude for hours of fun with that purchase.
The last game I pirated was Civilization 4, which initially had a lot of bugs with graphic cards. While the game was pure fun when it worked, the bugs affected my radeon 9800 pro, so a purchase was postponed and I deleted the game. After patch 1.74 was released last year I bought it and had fun with it ever since, even though it uses SafeDisc 4.

Re:We will not compromise

[mpeskett]

Buying things is quick, easy, and without hassle. Pirating on the other hand is a pain in the ass, time consuming, and risky. My time is worth more than what it takes to pirate

I have the exact opposite leanings. To go buy a game I have to go out to some shitty games store (the ones around here are all shitty, your mileage may vary) and that takes time out of my day. At the very least I have to go online and buy it, and then it takes a few days to arrive. Pirated copy... takes minutes to find a torrent, then I can leave it downloading in the background and when I come back later it's done

Hell, it's not worth my time to not pirate stuff

Re:We will not compromise

[Meagermanx]

I'm sorry that you haven't been fully informed about the release of the new Command and Conquer: Red Alert game.
While there is, indeed, a version with restrictive Digital Rights Management(DRM), there is also going to be another version completely free of DRM. I'll run you through a quick comparison of the features of both versions, so that you, the consumer, may make an informed decision regarding how to spend your money.

Version 1.
-Can only be installed 5 times.
-Installs spyware on your computer.
-Comes with box and manual.
-$49.95

Version 2.
-Can be installed any number of times.
-Does not install spyware on your computer.
-Will likely be released several days before Version 1.
-Available for download from the comfort of your own home.
-$0.00

Have a consumptive day.

Re:We will not compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the pirates are laughing their asses off at the way EA is screwing themselves

No, they aren't. Pirates aren't competing with EA. They really don't give a shit how many people download their pirated games. In fact, most pirates go out of their way to tell you to buy the game because they know only successful games will ever see the light of day again. The only people that EA
are hurting is their customers and themselves. Pirates will keep on doing their thing as always.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

You forgot one feature:

Version 1.
-Is legally and morally acceptable.

Version 2.
-Is legally and morally unacceptable.

Re:We will not compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, they've finally gone back to including MANUALS?! I thought those were soooo 1995.

Re:We will not compromise

[Joe U]

You might have a point, negative reviews are one thing, but a call in campaign to the EA main office to file a complaint might do wonders.

Especially if it's repeated on a reasonable basis, say weekly.

Re:We will not compromise

[nog_lorp]

You forgot.

Version 1:
-Available for download from EA, estimated time 12 hours.

Version 2:
-Available for download, estimated time 1-4 hours depending on source.

Re:We will not compromise

[HappySmileMan]

You forgot one feature:

Version 1.

-Is legally and morally acceptable.

Version 2.

-Is legally and morally unacceptable.

Well not much people agree that this spyware (That's wht it is, not necessarilly a rootkit, but it's purpose is to spy on you) is morally acceptable. Maybe you do, but most people try to avoid spyware.

Most people also think it's not morally acceptable to say "What, you already installed the game 3(or 5) times, go buy another one."

Re:We will not compromise

[Smoke2Joints]

i dont know about you, but piracy these days is a piece of proverbial piss.

1) download iso
2) mount iso, install game
3) enter cd key in .nfo file included with iso
4) copy crack from CRACK dir in cd root dir
5) enjoy your game without DRM

do the above, and you will have pre-2000 gaming experience with regards to copy protection. its amazing that these companies still actually think their DRM actually stops pirates. as i recall, spore was released to the pirate community days before the actual release. if it can be cracked, it will be. why punish the actual customers?

Re:We will not compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I always hate to wait for a packet. Downloads can work in the background, but waiting for mail is really inconvenient.

Re:We will not compromise

[interstellar_donkey]

You left a bit out.

Version 1.
-Is morally reprehensible for the vendor.

Version 2.
-Is a release the vendor could be proud of.

Re:We will not compromise

[Meagermanx]

Pirating software is only morally wrong if not buying software is morally wrong. They both have the same effect for the publisher.

Re:We will not compromise

[Alsee]

If you want a manual, you can buy #1 and install #2.

When you first install it you should probably call their installation line. You know, just to say thanks but no thanks you won't be needing their activation services, and that they could save some money by skipping that unneeded service next time.

-

Re:We will not compromise

[FishWithAHammer]

So don't buy it and don't play it.

Re:We will not compromise

[Firehed]

That's great if you're fine with playing it in a few days, or maybe your torrent performance is always fantastic on all torrents. I grabbed the torrent of Spore, and after waiting for several hours while doing other stuff, it was still at 1% or so (I was averaging under 5kbps - yes, my settings are fine, other torrents can zip right along). I got fed up to the point where I just went out and bought the thing. Popped it in the drive, installed, done, playing before the torrent hit 5%, and played through most of the game before 10%. It finally finished up a couple of days ago.

Point being that when I want to play a game, I'm looking for something that I can play _now_, not wait hours or days for a download to complete to save some money. Buying it did get me that, even if it got me little else. I did have to go out and hunt down a copy at a physical store which I always hate doing (especially when you forget that most stores close at 6pm on Sunday; luckily (or not) Best Buy stays open till 7 here), but it DID still satisfy that urge for something to do that evening.

Now having said and done all that, I'd have rather waited as it certainly didn't live up to the hype. It was fun, but the interesting parts don't last nearly long enough and each stage keeps changing the gameplay style very awkwardly. I don't have an issue with having paid for it, but it was worth maybe $20-25 for the entertainment value it provided. It has reaffirmed my opposition to EA though, for reasons unrelated to the DRM (though that certainly doesn't help).

Re:We will not compromise

[Macrat]

I agree, I think EA is blowing its own foot off. I spend a LOT of money on games.

Prepare to spend a lot more. You are exactly who this is created for then.

Re:We will not compromise

[cibyr]

My thoughts exactly. I happily buy games when they're cheap and hassle-free. Case in point: Orange Box - available on Steam for about half the price of most retail games here. Downloaded quickly from a Steam content sever run by my ISP so I didn't even get charged for the data. Got to play the TF2 beta before release, stuff pre-loaded and I was playing before there were even any torrents out.

Another example: Audiosurf. Everyone making small, casual-ish games should use that game as their model: I played a demo, I liked it and I was able to buy the game on steam for basically loose change in my paypal account and start playing almost instantly.

When a game doesn't have a decent demo, I'll just pirate the full thing and never bother to buy it. When it's easier to torrent than deal with some stupid download system I'll never bother to buy it. When the price is near $100 (or more!) I'm not gonna fork that out when I could buy it from Asia for about $40 but I'm not gonna wait for that to arrive so I'm gonna torrent it. When I can't buy a game online there is no way in hell I'm gonna get off my ass to give you money. Here's a hint, game companies: If I pay you for your product it should be easier, faster, more convenient and generally a BETTER experience than pirating. Sort that out and you get my money. Make it a pain in the ass with stupid prices, no downloadable version, stupid DRM or the simple fact that I can get it sooner from the pirates than from you then YOU MISS OUT.

Re:We will not compromise

[TheRaven64]

I find it morally wrong to pirate something and keeping it if I like it instead of buying it and showing my gratitude for hours of fun with that purchase

Totally agree. I have legal copies of the first four C&C games. I won't buy the next one because of the DRM. If I pirated it, I'd probably enjoy it, and then I might tell other people that I enjoyed it, and they might buy it, and so pirating it would indirectly lead to EA profiting from releasing a game with unacceptable DRM. Since I have no intention of EA profiting in any way from my actions, even indirectly, while they continue to pull this kind of stunt, I'll spend my entertainment money on other things.

Re:We will not compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one thing:

Version 1 is legally and morally unacceptable for game publishers to sell to consumers because it takes their cash away without giving them a product. Version 1 changes the terms of a game agreement (something that has been the same since the dawn of computing when Ultima 1 was sold in Ziploc bags) from buying a license of a game to just a 5 try game rental.

Version 2 is just the natural outcome of people fed up with being robbed.

Re:We will not compromise

[parcel]

Version 1.
-Is legally and morally acceptable.

Version 2.
-Is legally and morally unacceptable.

So leaving the morality out of it, since we're talking factual information rather than your opinions, you bring up an interesting point... the only area where version 1 is superior to version 2 is the result of an artificial construct that is theoretically in place to provide benefit to the population as a whole. Are the restrictions, limitations, reduced functionality, reduced performance, and violation of one's (perceived if not inherent) right to privacy outweighed by the (theoretically) limited monopoly providing incentive for the artist to produce more works?

Or has copyright law gotten so out of control and distant from its intended purpose that it now primarily serves to provide a legal framework for business entities to screw over paying customers? I'm not sure how, especially looking at situations like this, you could say otherwise. Defective by design, indeed.

I don't commit copyright infringement. I also don't purchase anything in which I receive a substantially inferior experience than a non-paying user of the item. I recently purchased Sins of a Solar Empire after reading Stardock's "Gamers Bill of Rights", and although I think they've violated it since I now need to install some second piece of software to get the newest patch, it's at least not something that I would consider gives me a substantially inferior experience.

So, in my opinion:

Version 1.
-Is legally acceptable and morally unacceptable.

Version 2.
-Is legally unacceptable and morally acceptable.

That combination in Version 1 stopped me from purchasing Spore, and will stop me from purchasing RA3. There's plenty of entertainment out there where I don't need to feel like I'm being pissed on for being a legitimate customer.

Not a Stardock shill, just glad that there are companies out there that still give half a crap about their customers. It reminds me of a sign they post at a burger place near me.. and apparently I'm not the only one who has noticed and appreciated this kind of thing.

Re:We will not compromise

[Meagermanx]

Why? If I play it without buying it, the effect is the same as if I had simply ignored it.

Pirating can also have a positive effect for the consumer. In the case of games like Spore, pirating it, whether you play it or not, is beneficial, because it tells EA Games that when the repressiveness of their DRM goes up, their bought/pirated ratio goes down. I'm considering pirating all new DRM-heavy games for just that reason.

Re:We will not compromise

[FishWithAHammer]

Why? If I play it without buying it, the effect is the same as if I had simply ignored it.

Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.

Re:We will not compromise

[Wakkow]

.. but you buy the games if they're available on Steam, right? Since that covers your only complaint.

Re:We will not compromise

[Firehed]

I'll ask you not to state what's moral for me, thank you very much. That's my decision.

Re:We will not compromise

[medelliadegray]

I will not buy any programs with SecuROM, I will check in advance now if they have it. I will be checking for info on similar programs on any future game purchases as well. Meaning, i will not buy "Cool New game right when it comes out!"

I have also put the makers of Command and Conquer onto my shit list. I wont be buying any future games from them, either. PERIOD.

I have Been burned twice now, and I have had to reload machines because of SecuROM crapware.

You don't know it's installed, there is no uninstaller. It somehow has reg keys you cannot delete, it phones home. How is this not a VIRUS or SPYWARE?

And vendors wonder why people warez their games? I see exactly where the appeal is: Less hassle, no CD checks, and about the same odds of getting a virus as if you were to but a retail game from your local*MART.

Games are supposed to be FUN.

Re:We will not compromise

[troynt]

You have the ability to install it 3 times, assuming they don't shutdown the Spore activation server in two years.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161699

Hopefully they would release a patch for that though, but I'm sure if they have Spore 2 out by then they wont bother.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

That's completely false. Pirating software is benefiting from the publisher/developer's work, without paying for it. Not buying it is simply avoiding it altogether. It's the "something for nothing" that is morally reprehensible.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

If your morals permit stealing, then by all means, go ahead and call it morally acceptable. Most people find stealing morally unacceptable, so my statement would stand for them.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

I'm not talking about morally acceptable on the company's behalf. The choice presented was from the perspective of the consumer, so moral correctness is then from the consumer's perspective. Yes, the company did wrong, but that doesn't make doing wrong to them right.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

Thank you. Glad that someone else besides me gets it.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

I agree that Stardock is doing things right, and I hope they do well. I never said that we should accept DRM in our products (unless it's the ideal, transparent, and extremely hypothetical sort that doesn't interfere with our use), I said that stealing the products is not the proper response.

The proper response is what you're doing: not buying from companies who try to screw over their customers, and buying from companies who treat their customers with respect.

Re:We will not compromise

[Meagermanx]

Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right."

Elaborate on why that is "not right".
If you cannot demonstrate your point, then that is simply your personal ethical opinion. I see no reason why your imposing moral visions should effect my actions when they harm no one, as I've already demonstrated.

I'm certainly not harming the creators in any way. I'm not stealing their bandwidth, packaging, or money any more than I would by simply ignoring the product.
The only thing wrong with software piracy is it decreases sales of a product. That's only my concern if I want the product, or the publisher, to succeed. While that might convince me to put my $50 vote in on a product from a different company, it is simply not a motivating factor for me here.
 
In this case, I'm rather hoping the product fails, and I'm certainly hoping the company fails, so that argument does not apply to this situation.

Re:We will not compromise

[Meagermanx]

I refer you to this post, and look forward to your reply.

Re:We will not compromise

[WDot]

Ultimately, piracy may decrease sales of a product to the point where it would not be profitable to develop for the PC. You may think you're sending the message that you don't like DRM, but all they see is that PC gaming is the domain of pirates and people who don't pay for video games, and they may just pack up and leave it behind.

If, in the extreme case that piracy of Spore and Red Alert 3 causes significant financial losses for EA, they may cut jobs back. There have been stories in recent months about game developers and publishers firing people (most notably Microsoft's closing down Ensemble studios and NCSoft's cuts). You may have "stuck it" to EA, but it's not the executives that are going to be hurting.

I'm not saying you should buy games just to make sure developers keep their jobs. I'm saying that if you want to send your message, don't buy or play the game. Instead, make lots of noise--reviews on websites, emails and letters straight to EA, blog posts, telling your friends not to buy their games, etc.

Re:We will not compromise

[Rakishi]

Most people don't give a damn about "stealing" digital products unless it's difficult or they can get caught. The morality of stealing physical property is very fully dependent on how well you can convince people it's for their good or the greater good.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

I'm certainly not harming the creators in any way. I'm not stealing their bandwidth, packaging, or money any more than I would by simply ignoring the product.

The key is here. While everything you said in that point is true, you overlooked one crucial fact: the creators made their work available under certain terms, so that they could get a return from the work they put into making their game (or music, or movie... this applies to all creative works). By taking the work for free, you are effectively forcing the creator to work for you under your terms, not theirs, which is a gross violation of their rights. Also:

If you cannot demonstrate your point, then that is simply your personal ethical opinion.

All opinions of moral/ethical correctness are personal opinions, and can be debated until the end of time without reaching a firm conclusion. Why do you fault this particular judgement, when you could say the same thing about any evaluation of whether something is morally or ethically acceptable?

Re:We will not compromise

[loraksus]

Of course, that means the kids here would have to call a long distance number and wait on hold for 20 minutes.

Re:We will not compromise

[Joe U]

This is Slashdot, if you don't have Skype, Vonage or something similar, then close your account and go somewhere less geeky.

(I'm not really sure how to close your account here, I'm guessing you could always do something amazingly extremely horrible and get banned. Graphically incinuate something involving Tux, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, various members of Taco's family and a Mac Classic...I'm betting that would do it.)

Re:We will not compromise

[mrchaotica]

Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.

Why not? If I pirate then I gain utility then the creators' utility stays the same. If I don't pirate then both our utility stays the same. Pirating has a greater net increase in utility than not pirating, so -- from a utility perspective, since that's what you were trying to argue -- what's wrong with it?

Re:We will not compromise

[mrchaotica]

The only thing wrong with software piracy is it decreases sales of a product.

If and only if the people pirating would otherwise have bought a copy. This is not necessarily the case.

Re:We will not compromise

[bky1701]

If it is not the case, then the person speaking does not matter. Those who never intended to buy it still never intend to buy it; that has not changed. What has changed is that a lot of people who would have, or at least may have, bought the game, now will not because of the DRM. Which means that the "moral" consequences are not much, if at all.

That, and there is the fact many of us do not agree that artificial scarcity is in any way moral to begin with.

I will not be buying nor pirating ether game. Simply playing it and taking about it goes to help the company peddling this intentionally defective software without regard to their customers, which I am not about to do.

Re:We will not compromise

[andy_t_roo]

so buy version 1, place it on your shelf to satify the moral values, then use version 2 to satisfy your usibility requirements.
<note -- this may not satisfy the legal requirements - you are still aquiring "bad bits">

Re:We will not compromise

[spire3661]

Its not right for the owners to try to deprive me right of first sale.

Re:We will not compromise

[Triv]

Point being that when I want to play a game, I'm looking for something that I can play _now_, not wait hours or days for a download to complete to save some money.

You either have too little regard for money or too little patience. You should work on that - try cutting coupons before you go grocery shopping some weekend, it'll teach you a bit of both.

Re:We will not compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

If torrents are slow on your provider then switch providers. Or get a Usenet account and download at the maximum speed of your connection like I did.

Re:We will not compromise

[Shihar]

Nope. As much as I like video games, I won't waste my time buying games that are just going to break if I get a new computer or do a clean wipe of my hard drive. People need to grow a pair when it comes to being a consumer. Just don't buy things. I can happily pass up on a game because its DRM sucks without any remorse. I spend money on games because I have money to spend on games, not because I need to. If a company like EA wants to try and make my life miserable? Eh, that is a few hundred dollars a year less they are going to get from my pocket.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

That's an excellent way to do it. Alternatively, if you don't want to drive their piracy figures up falsely (it'll just lead to more DRM, whatever the optimists might say), you could download a no-CD crack. Nothing wrong with that. I just don't think we should advocate stealing someone's product just because they made an otherwise good product undesirable.

Re:We will not compromise

[PopeGumby]

Well not much people agree that this spyware (That's wht it is, not necessarilly a rootkit, but it's purpose is to spy on you) is morally acceptable. Maybe you do, but most people try to avoid spyware.

Most people also think it's not morally acceptable to say "What, you already installed the game 3(or 5) times, go buy another one."

Neither of which are actions taken by YOU the CONSUMER, they are actions taken by the company. So you're saying that by them doing something which is morally unacceptable, you are therefore allowed to do something back to them? Do you live in a world where two wrongs make a right?

Re:We will not compromise

[TheSpoom]

Exactly the same experience here. TPB has better customer service than EA and with more honest opinions (on their comments) to boot. Plus, I don't have to physically go anywhere; I just wait a few hours and it's right there on my PC, ready to go.

If content makers woke the fuck up and realized that they're quickly getting outsold by their own repackaged material, they'd actually innovate in their methods of sale, and find out what customers actually want instead of telling them.

But don't expect that any time soon.

Re:We will not compromise

[TheSpoom]

Hell, if people actually care about the manual, it'll be included in Version 2 as a PDF.

Re:We will not compromise

[Uberbah]

If your morals permit stealing

For the trillionth time, copyright infringement != stealing. And EA can whine about morals when they drop crippleware rootkits and limited installs.

Re:We will not compromise

[Uberbah]

Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.

So Fish, you ever bought a used CD?

Re:We will not compromise

[Zakabog]

That's great if you're fine with playing it in a few days, or maybe your torrent performance is always fantastic on all torrents. I grabbed the torrent of Spore, and after waiting for several hours while doing other stuff, it was still at 1% or so (I was averaging under 5kbps - yes, my settings are fine, other torrents can zip right along).

I officially pre-ordered spore a few days before it came out, it let me download 99% of the game but not install. I wanted to play right then, so I looked on TPB, found a torrent, downloaded it that day in a little longer than the official version from EA took (about 5 hours.) So rather than wait a few days for the game to be out in the US and have EA send me that one last MB worth of data, I pirated the game and didn't have to worry about any DRM (which I then installed on my work computer, and my home computer, I'd install it on my powerbook as well but I don't have Leopard.)

Re:We will not compromise

[Uberbah]

Ultimately, piracy may decrease sales of a product to the point where it would not be profitable to develop for the PC. You may think you're sending the message that you don't like DRM, but all they see is that PC gaming is the domain of pirates and people who don't pay for video games, and they may just pack up and leave it behind.

Except that EA isn't the only publisher and doesn't operate in a vacuum. If they see a high piracy/sales ratio compared to titles from other companies they might get the message.

Re:We will not compromise

[bigstrat2003]

For the trillionth time, copyright infringement != stealing.

Say it all you want, that won't make it true. Oh, sure, it differs from physical theft, but it's still theft, just a different kind than your more mundane theft. Murder someone with a gun or knife, and they're just as dead.

Re:We will not compromise

[Sobrique]

I can't say I've pirated anything in a while - I'm at a point where 'good enough to waste time playing' means 'good enough to pay for'. I'm a huge fan of C&C in general, and bought ... pretty much all of them (ok, I may have missed C&C 3), although I've been spoilt a bit by Supreme Commander. RA3 is not something I will be buying with that DRM on. There you go EA. One lost sale as a result of your policy.

It is unacceptable to rootkit your software as piracy defense. It does nothing to stop piracy, but it does annoy me, as the legitimate consumer.

Re:We will not compromise

[guyminuslife]

Why? If I play it without buying it, the effect is the same as if I had simply ignored it.

Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.

Well, I'll be damned. You've got a point there. In the future, I'll try to make sure that I'm never happy unless I pay someone for it.

Re:We will not compromise

[guyminuslife]

Where's RMS and Linus? I owe them back taxes....

Re:We will not compromise

[Pofy]

>Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.

Are you saying one should never "gaining utility" without compensating the creator? That must mean you are of the opinion that giving something away is never ok by you? If I visit your house, I suppose I need to stand up as I can't sit in your sofa? Of course, on the other hand, I can't lend you the good book I read the other week since then you would "gain utility" reading it without compensating the creator. When you turn on the music, I should use my earplugs so I don't gain utility without paying the creators. The good thing is, only I can eat the food I brought with my car since otherwise you would gain utility wihtout compensating my car manufacturer. The story I heard the other day on the buss will of course stay with me, I can't chare that one with you since I don't know how to compensate the "creator" of it. To be honest, I will probably not even be allowed to enter your house since I gained utility of a whole bunch of stuff my brother gave me when he moved into his girlfriends house that he needed no more and I didn't pay anything to the creators, yet I gained tonds of utility.... I must be such a major offender to you. Problem solved with the sofa at least.

Re:We will not compromise

[Uberbah]

Say it all you want, that won't make it true. Oh, sure, it differs from physical theft, but it's still theft, just a different kind than your more mundane theft.

Is that so, Mr. Pot? Assault with a deadly weapon, arson, shooting heroin, fraud and driving under the influence are all crimes involving property, so they must be exactly the same, right? Or why not just rid of all definitions for completely different types of illegal activity and just go with baby-raping cannibalism and save us all kinds of time.

Re:We will not compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Somone might argue that the despicable actions of the company revokes any say they might have on wether action 2 is right or wrong.

Re:We will not compromise

[stewbee]

I know that you are trying to say the pirated version is the superior product, but version 2 is not always free of spyware. It is just a different type than those sanctioned by EA. There have been times where I downloaded a piece of software off of bit torrent but the crack had spyware ready to install once you executed the file. These subtle details obviously do not make your argument so black and white.

Re:We will not compromise

[Elldallan]

It's still very much illegal though because you're not allowed to circumvent DRM.

The content creators does their very best to rob their users of the right to make personal copies aswell as the right of first sale plus the measures they include to enforce those limitations of the customers rights screws with the customers computer and as long as they keep disrespecting their customers they don't deserve that customers respect their rights.

Re:We will not compromise

[cgenman]

To be fair, EA did have a download service for Spore, and will probably do so again for C&C.* At least we're that much closer to the year 2000.

*PC Only, with all slimeware.

Re:We will not compromise

[brkello]

Really, this gets modded insightful? The pro-piracy people on this site get too many mod points.

Why does anyone have to elaborate on "not right" when it comes to piracy. It is freaking obvious. But fine, if you are really that dense. Just simply do the "other shoes" thing. If you spent years of your life working on something, how would you feel if someone just took your work without compensating you for it? You would be upset...and if you are trying to say you would be cool with it, you are being intellectually dishonest.

The best way to protest is to not buy their product and give your money to someone who does what you consider right. The people like you, the pirate, are a large part of the reason that DRM exists and that we all have to suffer. If people did the "right thing", then DRM would not be an issue.

You probably think I am anti-piracy...and I really am not. Do whatever you want. But don't try to fool yourself or others that you are morally in the right. That's just one of the stupidest things I have to read on this site on an almost daily basis.

Re:We will not compromise

[Meagermanx]

In a modern society, the most feasible way to regulate morality is to criminalize those things which affect other people. You don't want me regulating what you do in the privacy of your own home. However, if I punch you, which negatively impacts you, I am imposing my values upon you.
While you may feel that pirating software is wrong, because it does not directly harm someone, as I have demonstrated, it should be beyond the confines of legality.
If you could demonstrate your beliefs, it would be different.

Re:We will not compromise

[Meagermanx]

"If you spent years of your life working on something, how would you feel if someone just took your work without compensating you for it? You would be upset...and if you are trying to say you would be cool with it, you are being intellectually dishonest."

I can read any book I want for free, if I get it from a library. Would you prefer that they be illegal? Should the author be angry?
I can watch any movie my friend owns, if I want to borrow it or watch it at her house. Is that morally wrong? Should the director be upset?
I can enjoy viewing paintings for free if I go to a museum. Should I have to pay each artist whose painting I witness? Should the artist be unhappy about this?

It seems that the immoral "taking work without compensating for it" is prevalent in most every other artform throughout society, and that it leads to a more culturally diffuse population.
I have yet to see a society in which controlling declassified information has had a positive effect.

Re:We will not compromise

[WNight]

Bullshit! They're attempting to STEAL money without providing utility. Stealing their utility is just leveling the playing field. Wah.

When this doesn't involve EULAs and depriving honest customers of the experience they expect when they BUY a product only to find it crippled beyond belief, then I'll respect EA's right to get paid. But as long as they're willing to rip off those who buy their games, it's be a huge injustice to give them any money.

It's like being assaulted by a thief trying to steal your wallet. Theoretically, taking anyone's wallet by force is bad. But if you pound him flat and take HIS wallet, it's not bad because he indicated to you (through his attack) his willingness to have his wallet taken, and his face beaten.

EA can indicate their willingness to be honest citizens, by providing honest value. Or they can act like thieves and be treated like thieves.

Your post is like saying that vigilante justice isn't moral. Which is wrong. It may be, or may not. The mere fact that it isn't societally endorsed says nothing in this regard.

As for the fairness of gaining utility, I'll note that Walt Disney gained a lot of utility without compensating the creators of his stories. We have no problem with one-sided gains where appropriate, only abuse of someone's legal position (rich, and thus always successful in court) intended to deny us our rightful gains.

Summary: Offer an honest product, deserve honest treatment. Try to cheat people, get beaten up and have your past-victims laugh as you bleed in the street.

Re:We will not compromise

[pwizard2]

There have been times where I downloaded a piece of software off of bit torrent but the crack had spyware ready to install once you executed the file.

Stuff from a well-known group is usually untainted, since a bad release will sink a group's rep really fast.

Re:We will not compromise

[WNight]

"Think of the devs!"

You're a complete douche. Of course nobody should ever do anything that impacts a company because --- PEOPLE MIGHT BE LAID OFF AND NEED TO FIND OTHER WORK! Oh My GOD!

That said, why aren't the EA devs as guilty as the management? I doubt management coded the DRM integration. I doubt they wrote the install counter. Those innocent devs thought their cushy job was more important than trying to deliver an honest product to their customers - they're just as guilty as their bosses.

They knew the type of EULAs used would attempt to deny future purchasers as much value as possible. They knew EA would restrict usage of the game not where required to prevent harm, but anywhere possible to get more money. Would they really have any moral ground on which to complain if 97% of their paycheck for this work mysteriously vanished? Like the value to a gamer who had to reinstall one-to-many times.

Re:We will not compromise

[WNight]

Absolutely! In what possible way is it wrong to punch someone who punched you?

Vigilantism is bad only in that theoretically individuals aren't as accurate about their targets.

Re:We will not compromise

[WNight]

under your terms, not theirs, which is a gross violation of their rights.

Their EULA is an attempt to deceive me into something I'd consider a gross violation of my rights. I don't see them as having ANY rights related to the software at this point. It's as if they used a car to commit a crime, it would be taken away. They use their software as bait for an innocent customer expecting a sale, so why shouldn't they lose their software to the customer? Like you'd lose your bait to the fish that got away?

I'm failing to see where they act in a moral upright fashion, and thus deserve the protections of society. If they offer a product for sale it would be theft to take it without paying. But to pick up a thief's bait and use it - delicious!

In fact, I think their houses should be fair game. $50 isn't much, but steal that much from enough people to buy a house and the house starts to looks like stolen property... If I own that window...

Re:We will not compromise

[modemboy]

"why punish the actual customers?"

This is to prevent the resale of games, no doubt about it. Just like the government using the "think of the children" line to steal out rights. EA is using the "evil pirates" to justify killing the used PC game market.

Re:We will not compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way you do. I too will not be buying from EA if they continue to misbehave.

Re:We will not compromise

[mpeskett]

Friggin love Steam. Hell, I've bought games on Steam after already having a pirated copy because the games were too good to not throw some money at the people who made them.

Steam is about the only (legal) place where I can find, buy, download and play a game without ever having to leave my chair... Steam rocks.

Re:We will not compromise

[Cornflake917]

I can read any book I want for free, if I get it from a library. Would you prefer that they be illegal? Should the author be angry?

Nice attempt at a straw man. However the library pays for the books. You get the books for free because libraries are paid for by the government. The author got compensated for the sale of that book copy.

I can watch any movie my friend owns, if I want to borrow it or watch it at her house. Is that morally wrong? Should the director be upset?

Again, you are putting words into the GP's mouth that he did not say. The correct comparison is if you wanted to watch a movie and didn't want to pay for it, so you went to the homeless guy down the street who was selling DVD rips for 2$ a pop. If I were a director, I'd rather people who are buying my movies to buy it legitimately.

I can enjoy viewing paintings for free if I go to a museum. Should I have to pay each artist whose painting I witness? Should the artist be unhappy about this?

Ugh, at this point I'm trying so hard to be respectful and not insult your intelligence, but give me a fucking break. First of all, paintings and software are totally different things. The museum paid for the ownership of the item. It doesn't work that way with software. The painter doesn't see lost revenue of his painting because the money was already given to him after he sold it to museum or a middle-man. It's totally different with software. Generally, you can't make profit from selling one copy of software, so you need to have protections that prevent people obtaining your software for free. If software companies can't protect themselves, then we would be society without a software industry.

Re:We will not compromise

[FishWithAHammer]

No, actually. I'm twenty years old; used CDs haven't been a very useful way to get music as long as I've been buying it (iTunes, Amazon, etc.).

Re:We will not compromise

[FishWithAHammer]

See, I would agree with you, if not for one thing.

It's the honest developers who get screwed by piracy, too. And they get screwed pretty hard. If it's a choice between respecting honest creators and disrespecting dishonest ones--there is no having it both ways here--then why would you not respect honest creators?

Re:We will not compromise

[WNight]

I don't see why you say there is no having it both ways. In fact, I do respect publishers who don't cripple their products - those who attempt to provide actual value, despite that someone else will pirate their product. Those people aren't trying to punish me for someone else's actions.

But EA. No respect. They seem totally unconcerned about making a usable product, as long as they can charge for it. They're further totally unconcerned about anyone who is injured by their DRM.

I'm happily enjoying my two ways of having it. Disrespect thieves, respect honest craftsmen. The difference between the two is if they're willing to fuck me over in a futile attempt to reduce loss a tiny bit.

Re:We will not compromise

[FishWithAHammer]

The gray areas are, to me, far too large. There are excellent, excellent developers working for EA, some of whom release unencumbered games. So I assume you don't pirate those?

EA is not the craftsman. They're the storefront.

Re:We will not compromise

[arkane1234]

I don't consider skype or vonage geeky, they're just voice over ip solutions. Some people have portable phones that work outside of the house.

How to make them understand... the fun way!

[Bragador]

Hehe you know what I'd do if I had the game?

Install it again and again, then call them to be able to reinstall it once a week (back up your saved games of course). Tell them it's because of windows and you had to reinstall it since some other unstable programs tend to screw the OS.

Lulz for everyone!

But they'd get the message ;)

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[Selfbain]

Or they'd just stop reactivating it for you and you have to buy another copy...

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[GryMor]

At which point you return it, or (check your CC terms), dispute it if they decline to accept a return on a defective product, or after properly documenting everything, file a an action in small claims (this presumes you were not reinstalling it for spite, but instead, actually having problems).

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[Crookdotter]

But also, you are paying for every support call you make. What's the price of every phone call, and who is really losing out when you try this?

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[mxs]

Precisely what makes you think they'll not tell you to go take a hike ?
Precisely what makes you think that the rabid band of fanboys will cuss you out on forums when you report on this, because you obviously are a pirate ?

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[Anonymous Coward]

not if you call from a work phone! this works even better if you work at EA.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[calmofthestorm]

You'd win in small claims court most likely; for the price of a game + legal fees companies won't usually bother even showing up.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[chill]

VoIP baby! No long distance charges.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[CelticWhisper]

That depends on whether it's a matter of practicality or principle. If you're out for practicality and just want things to work as easily as possible for you, then yes, you can make the case that you're losing out when you take the long road. However, if you're speaking from principle and you want to get a change made, then some sacrifices are necessary. Nobody ever said it was going to be painless, just that it will hopefully be more painful for EA in the long run.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[nurb432]

Unless you are someone special they really wont care.

After their preset limit, they would just stop talking to you and tell you to buy a new copy.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[Crookdotter]

I hadn't thought of that. I salute you sir!

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[Anonymous Coward]

then call them to be able to reinstall it once a week (back up your saved games of course). Tell them it's because of windows

Well now, let's be realistic, this is Windows. You'd have to call at least five times a day.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[jimicus]

At which point you return it, or (check your CC terms), dispute it if they decline to accept a return on a defective product, or after properly documenting everything, file a an action in small claims (this presumes you were not reinstalling it for spite, but instead, actually having problems).

Of course, there is the bijou issuette that your small claims case will likely be against the retailer rather than the manufacturer, as it's the retailer that's refusing to accept a return of a faulty product.

Chances are the publisher won't even hear about it unless it happens many times to a sufficiently large retailer who's got the clout to turn around and say "don't do that again".

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[nurb432]

Return opened software for a refund? Good luck.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[steelfood]

Install XP SP1 on connected directly to your ISP. Before you're even done installing, you'll have five different types of malware on your system. After a week when it gets to be too much, rinse and repeat.

If you really need to defend yourself, say you have no NAT and no way to install SP2 offline.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[TheSpoom]

Small claims might work; a retail return won't (you can't return opened software under US and other countries' copyright laws). You'd also have a hard time convincing your credit card company to do a chargeback several weeks after you received the product.

Re:How to make them understand... the fun way!

[Uberbah]

you can't return opened software under US and other countries' copyright laws

No, that's the lie Best Buy tells people when they try to return something.

If the piracy rate is low?

[sdhankin]

I don't see how that affects their decisions. Spore has reportedly been pirated half a million times - how has the DRM changed that? All it's done is piss off the paying customers, who are being treated like criminals.

DRM doesn't work against pirates. It only works against the honest people. When will companies learn that?

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Aereus]

To the contrary, I think it's probably driven MORE people to pirating the game just so they can say "screw you" to EA for the excessive DRM.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[hairyfeet]

Because this has NOTHING to do with piracy. I repeat: NOTHING at all to do with piracy. This is a plan by EA to take out the used games market and take away your right to first sale. So if you care about your right to sell games you no longer want then DO NOT buy this game or Spore! Until EA removes ALL the limited activation crap and gives us back our right to first sale I will no longer buy ANY EA game. No MoH,No Madden,nothing. And if enough of us do that then we can fight EA where it hurts:in the wallet.

Also be sure to stick bad reviews pointing out the limited activation DRM into Amazon and every review site on the web you can find,because I would have gotten "Spored" if I hadn't noticed the negative reviews and I'm sure I'm not alone. If we don't then every other company will see EA get away with it and think they can do it too. Do you WANT to have to sit on the phone for hours doing a little monkey dance for all the different game companies when Windows borks? But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Devout_IPUite]

If they get a lower piracy rate to sale rate with Red Alert 3, it will tell them that DRM harms sales. Simple.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Jorophose]

I was going to buy the Spore "Collector's Edition" if it wasn't for SecuROM. I'm sure I'm not alone. Even if most people would have waited for it to be 30$ or 20$, a lot of my friends were considering buying it. I told them not to, that we'll just get a cracked version.

I don't think anybody who wanted to buy the game and knew about the DRM actually bought it. Or if they did they're running a cracked version and bought the game due to troll's remorse or received it as a gift.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[calmofthestorm]

To paraphrase an earlier comment, the goal here is to eliminate the right of first sale, not to prevent piracy.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[ceoyoyo]

Hey, it'll work great! The used market for Spore is going to be stillborn. Of course, it hasn't done the new market any good either....

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[snemarch]

Indeed.

I had planned on buying spore, but I definitely won't due to the *excessive* DRM. It's bad enough to have SecuROM slowing down gamecode and requiring the DVD to be in your drive, even though it's not being used for anything but copy protection.

But limiting the number of reinstalls? No way. Normally I would probably just have shrugged, and applied a crack to my legitimately purchased game. A part of spore is the online stuff (exchanging creatures, vehicles etc. with other people), and that would be blocked by using a pirate version.

EA can sod off, they're not getting my money. They're one of those companies that destroy everything they touch. I miss westwood.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I was about to buy the Collector's Edition as well, but them I remembered that while American corporations want to take my money, Russian and Chinese pirate-hackers are out there cracking this stuff so the American corporations can lose their money and we, gamers, can have fun.
Then I went to piratebay and got mine for free. Spaciba, Russian hacker comrades!

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Jorophose]

... is slashdot always filled with shills like these?

I'm suprised how somebody will spend time doing posts like this. Is this all you do all day?

I'll buy the game when it's released as a product that can be standalone and installed as many times as I like. Else, piss off.

(On the other hand, there might be a 25$ cheque in the mail for Maxis. Really that's all they deserve for the game... and EA does not deserve a cent)

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Caged]

Where on earth can you sell/trade used PC games? Most places that sell 2nd hand games only take consoles.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[FishWithAHammer]

EA directly owns Maxis, you do know that?

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[jimicus]

Because this has NOTHING to do with piracy. I repeat: NOTHING at all to do with piracy. This is a plan by EA to take out the used games market and take away your right to first sale.

And here we have the absolutely classic case explaining how the law is lagging behind technology.

Back when the right to first sale was established in law, the very idea of technology which could prevent you exercising your rights when there was no technical reason why you couldn't (ie. it's not a product which intrinsically loses all its value the moment you open the box) simply didn't exist.

So now we have the faintly absurd scenario where there are a whole bunch of laws which work in the consumer's favour and a whole bunch of companies who are essentially taking advantage of loopholes in those laws (which didn't exist when they were written) to nullify them.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[0111 1110]

Spaciba, Russian hacker comrades!

It was a Russian cracking group that cracked Spore? How do you know?

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[snuf23]

Ebay.

The law regarding the doctrine of first sale and computer software is pretty muddled (contradictory judgments). As a result mainstream game stores do not resell computer games.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[mrmaster]

Half a million times? I think its much much more than that. I'm not buying it cause of the DRM and I always buy Will Wright games.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Jorophose]

Yeah, I was going to try sending money to Wright himself, but I don't think it's fair to the rest of the team.

Maybe some cake and beer.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit on you.

Vast majority of pirates could care less if it has DRM or not, it is free it is not that hard to understand and compete against. Stop trying to make up excuses for pirates, hell I even pirated it because it was free like every person has been doing in the Warez scene. Yah I downloaded that movie last week because I wanted to say "screw you RIAA", I felt so hardcore. Seriously where have you Linux users been the last decade for us PC gamers online, oh thats right nothing worked on it and DRM is not being complained about in the game companies forums.

They are not saying "screw you" to EA, they're just lazy/cheap bastards(kiddies) or wanna try it first before committing to the online version, some real hardcore protesters there. The amazon protest was pretty weak as when I first went to read it there were actual reviews of the gameplay, but sure enough after Slashdot and the Linux agenda started to protest you could see the spam comments starting to popup from people you would obviously never expect to be the customer and have gone on the DRM fear mongering.

Everyone has played the cat and mouse game with companies DRM and product activation, I think it is majority of the time bullshit when people claim the pirated version is easier to run than the normal version, NOCD is one of the only exceptions and Steam has answered those customers. Cannot count the times I have been snuck attacked a WGA install with my pirated XP install or tried to install a patch on a game only to find out the MainGame.exe had been replaced by a crack so I have to waste time reinstalling the whole game if I forgot to back it up. The legit install of Vista that I got for free from MS I have never had to stress on WGA but run through every update seamlessly, unlike XP where I regret not actually ever buying a legit copy because it was an actually good OS but the beta of XP got everyone hooked and so began the cat and mouse game(waste of time).

Sorry I don't like how everything is candy coated all around here to satisfy the others opinion and only wish to install some cold hard reality but maybe with a little bias. DRM sucks but it is not very intrusive or affecting gameplay to MS Windows users, this is really a Linux problem that gets misrepresented around here.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Anonymous Coward]

My idiot friend bought Spore. His CD key didn't validate so he doesn't get creatures from other players online. I hope he learned his lesson. He repeatedly says EA is evil, and I agree, but why the fuck then does he buy the damn games?

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Bazar]

I think you have that the wrong way around
If the rate of piracy increases to sales of RA3, it'll at the very best suggest that DRM has had no effect, and at worst suggest that its forcing potental sales into piracy.

Now if the rate of piracy decreases, it'll suggest to the executives that DRM is working to convert piracy to sales, and that'll only encourage them to create more abusive DRM.

But regardless, this is designed to kill off the resale value. (Proven by the fact that they disabled multiple profiles per account)
They could have the same effect designed by simply limiting it to 3 activations of the same key with different IPs a week's period. That way any keys posted online would be worthless to the vast majority.
Yet it would allow the vast majority of users to continue to reinstall without issues.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Shark]

Just add a note telling him to share with the team. I wonder how much money they'd make if someone started "sorry we like your game but not your overlords here's 40$" movement.

That could be quite a publicity stunt for the anti-DRM cause.

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Anonymous Coward]

- "But the DRM restrictions are more loose than they were with Spore, how can the sales go down?"
- "We don't know but it's clear that the Spore restrictions were better than the ones for RA3"

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[greeze]

...I would have gotten "Spored" if I hadn't noticed the negative reviews and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Yup, I was actually on my way out the door to buy it when I saw this /. article on my news reader.

This is the last straw for me. Starting today, every time I see a game that's been DRM'd to hell, I'm putting that $50 into my sock drawer. Use that money for a PC upgrade. Or maybe a console...

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[brkello]

*rolls eyes* DRM does prevent some people from pirating. There are plenty of people who would not be able to put the time or effort in to knowing what the heck a torrent is and being able to figure out that the cd crack is in a file rather than it "just working".

If we want to debate this, let us be intellectually honest about it otherwise it is pointless. For the vast majority of people, DRM has no negative effect. I have never had a problem with DRM and I have played games that supposedly have had some of the worst. On the other hand, there are people who get burned by that and they will forever be left with a bitter taste in their mouth.

So what do we do? Guess what, if you think DRM is just going to go away...it isn't. Crying about "when companies will learn" is going to get you mod points but it isn't going to make a difference. What we have to stand up for is DRM that prevents the casuals from pirating but doesn't have ridiculous restrictions. Steam is one that comes to mind quite easily. We need to reward game companies that have "good" DRM or no DRM by buying their products and boycott the game companies that use crappy DRM schemes. And by boycott I mean ignore the game. Not pirate it. If you actually believe in these things, and want to be taken seriously, then you should stand for what you believe in. That means sacrificing playing some good games. If you pirate it, then you are just continuing the cycle and giving more ammunition to the EA's of the world to add more restrictive DRM.

Realistically though, people are too stupid and selfish to follow that though. So this is just going to continue on like it has been with no real change. Which begs the question of why I bother responding to this sort of thing, doesn't it?

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[bryansj]

Goozex does PC game trades. http://www.goozex.com/trading/asp/join.asp?idr=556272169833

Re:If the piracy rate is low?

[Xiph]

Of course, if it's the other way around, it will tell them that some people learned their lesson?
On the other hand, if red alert sales goes bonkers, they'll say "Look what happens when we loosen drm!!", even though the difference between 3 installs on one computer and 1800 installs on one computer is without impact on piracy.

I think it's the "Door-in-the-face" salesman trick, of first asking an insanely high price, so the stupidly high price seems more acceptable.
And I think you bought it.

Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Ambiguous Coward]

Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future.

That's not how it works. If the piracy rate is low, they will herald their measures as a success, and it will only serve to increase the amount of DRM in the future.

-G

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[cliffski]

says who?
Ea aren't retards, they are the biggest games company in existence. They PAY for the RDM, and for their customer service reps. if they think they could get away with ditching DRM tomorrow they would. Personally, I think they *could* ditch it tomorrow, and not hurt sales, but they seem to disagree.

Anyway you look at it, jerks like that kid on thepiratebay saying "everyone make this the most pirated game ever!" are NOT going to get DRM removed.

The success of stardock and similar companies will do more to persuade EA they don't need DRM then any amount of name calling or piracy of EA titles will.

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[cliffski]

gah, should be DRM, not RDM. bloody lack of edit thing :D

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

a good example of this is "china-specific" pricing. everyone pirates in china, therefore many software companies compete with that by lowering their prices to a fraction of what we pay.

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is this whole thing has become a vicious circle.

There are always people who will warez stuff; This will never change. Even if the games had no DRM, they'd still pirate the game.

Most people (Like me) would buy their games, however. (Possibly warezing it first to see if it's worth buying).
This was up until a few years ago 'tho; Now this group is shrinking rapidly - We are not keen on the ridiculous things being done to our systems by these games (It's only a f*****g game FFS! These programs have more ludicrous security than the programs I use for work!!), so we either don't buy them or migrate to the warez groups.

I haven't bought any games since WH40k:DoW abnd expansions, and only because that had no DRM at all.
I bought NWN1 years after it came out when they removed the DRM (And am still waiting for NWN2's DRM to bbe removed before I buy it.)

On a side note, I bought GalCiv2 on the basis that it had no DRM, but this turned out to be a fat dirty lie. (The game doesn't have DRM, but the patches to make the game NOT SUCK do. And now you need to install a Steam-like DRM-facilitating client just to download the patches!)

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Devout_IPUite]

If they decrease DRM, and sales go up and piracy goes down... Now yeah, some business guys are dumb... but the obvious conclusion is...

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Ren.Tamek]

It's strange how these people think isn't it?

"People are pirating our game? We need copy protection and DRM!"
"Piracy is still high, it's not working... more DRM will fix this!"
"Piracy is going down? Obviously DRM is working!"
"Games sales are still too low? It can't be due to our unsustainable business model and crapware, those pirates must still be thieving our stuff!"

It's amazing how many people swallow their crap when there real agenda is pretty clear to see - they want to eliminate second hand sales and casual game sharing. It ain't going to work, it's not going to be particularly beneficial, and by the time they realise that consumer trust will have fallen through the floor.

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[jonaskoelker]

They PAY for the RDM, and for [...]

Restrictions Digital Management; riight... Use grammar French much?

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know:

RDM - Rights Destroying Middleware?

It has a good ring to it. I know alot of people like "Digital Restrictions Management" but I think RDM sounds better.

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Ambiguous Coward]

Please note: I made absolutely NO claim that the contrapositive of my original statement is true. That is, I claimed that decreased piracy DOES NOT induce decreased DRM. I did NOT, however, claim that increased piracy DOES induce decreased DRM.

The simple fact of the matter is that NOTHING induces decreased DRM. DRM is both the inevitable future of media, and the inevitable doom.

Yeah, it's a bummer.

-G

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, if the piracy rate is high, they will increase the amount of DRM in the future to compensate.

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[jez9999]

Nah, he just watches the UN secretary general and lots of courts marshall.

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[arbiter1]

problem with a lot of DRM is causes more problems on end users machine. crashing, BSOD, slow downs, etc. and if they went back to simplier model they would be fine. hell only company that really has the problem for most part figured out is valve.

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[brkello]

That's not how it works. If the piracy rate is low then they have a reason to think piracy is less of an issue so they won't have to spend so much putting in DRM in the future.

See how easy it is to make up some bs statement without substantiating it?

Re:Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG!

[Ambiguous Coward]

Ever read any press releases from the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, etc.? Any time piracy is found to be lower, it's allegedly because DRM methods are working. This is a discussion, not a Wikipedia article, so no, I'm not going to waste my time running around Google looking for citations. As I give the people in the discussion the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Google-competence, I leave finding those statements as an exercise to the reader.

Your comment, however, provides little--if anything--of substance to the discussion.

-G

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Worthless.

As if these restrictions won't be/haven't been cracked.

Pure conjecture

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future.

No, thats not how it works. Such hope should be placed with a company who has their customer's best interest as a priority. Not EA. Customer Service is the tenth thing on their list-to-do. They are geared to do the least amount of work possible to keep the customers from bitching. I can't say that I blame them, but I can say that having hope in them to pull back restrictions after everyone has quieted down is crazy. If they had that faith in their customer base, they wouldn't have gone the DRM route in the first place, now would they?

Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amazon

[badboy_tw2002]

Not requiring the CD is nothing new - Spore doesn't need it nor does anything downloaded from the digital store - hasn't for years. The 5 activation thing is more, but 3,5, what's the right number? 100? I think people's issue is with the SecurRom stuff that is resident while you play the game right? Anyways, unless people protest every single game that comes out (including Steam!) from the game industry, this is a small isolated, and quickly forgotten event. The industry is moving past CD checks, and for most people 5 installations, no CD check and a one time activation is not a hassle. They're probably still running bonzai buddy, do you really think they give a rat's ass about securom?

    I'm not really sure what's the way to go on it, but I know posting some BS FUD on Amazon like "SONY ROOTKITTED ME OMG!" and claiming victory when they raise the install limit to 5 is not the way to go.

a small victory.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a step. keep protesting and keep pirating and one day we'll see a more consumer-friendly business model.

what what what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would such a marginal "improvement" make the slightest difference in how many people decide to actually buy the game?

At some point, the intelligent game publishers are going to realize that they're spending a lot of money in copy protection licensing fees and extra customer service, while the pirates are entirely unaffected. Spore already had the online service as a major component of the game; that can be easily and naturally restricted to paying customers only. There was absolutely no sane justification, aside from the usual corporate feel-good CYA bullshit, to incorporate any kind of copy protection.

I actually was going to spend my 50 Euro on Spore until I heard about the DRM. I'm not a fanatic, but *three* installs before I have to deal with customer service? That is absolute bullshit. I dual boot XP and Vista64, I reinstall frequently, I have multiple machines. No way was I spending money for the privilege of experiencing major headaches when I try to install a fucking game. Turns out I'm glad I didn't spend the money, because it's a nice LEGO-y toy, but as a game it's pretty crap.

DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[David Gerard]

No airtight DRM is possible (and Spore's already been cracked). But content producers are so obsessed with absolute control that they'll beg people to take money to sell them snake oil. Of course, this always works. Yeah.

Others speculate the real target of game DRM is to kill the second-hand market. But, of course, that does no good when the competition is the cracked copies. Piracy: The Better Choice.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[calmofthestorm]

What about watermarking as DRM? It doesn't strike me as that objectionable, and if you started pressing criminal charges against people found distributing their copies...

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Creepy Crawler]

So what about First Sale Doctrine?

I have a RIGHT to sell whatever I want, especially what I buy from a boxed store.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[antifoidulus]

I never actually understood the executives obsession with the 2nd hand games market. The amount of re-investment there has to be huge. Everyone I know that sells their games just goes and buys new games with the money they collected. Sure there will always be "leaks", and ultimately it probably does cost them a tiny bit of revenue, but judging by their reaction you would think that they would fold tomorrow if everyone could sell their games..... Seems like a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[calmofthestorm]

I fail to see how that affects anything. The idea here is that they're going after copies they download off BT...making available + transferring = infringement.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[David Gerard]

Record companies loathe and despise the second-hand market too. The first-sale doctrine never did go down well with them.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Creepy Crawler]

It's not hard to remove watermarks.

Get X versions of the file with watermarks. Now, use diff between them to create a diff on each pair. Determine the relationship of watermarks.

Then remove said watermarks. If removal is not possible, mutilate them so they are unrecoverable. If mutiliation is not possible, copy watermarked file from a fake buyer, "John Q. Public". Disposable "credit cards" are quite nice.

Company sues John Q Public. Nobody knows who that is.

Watermarks assume that I cannot transfer OWNERSHIP from myself to somebody else. I can, and I will.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[calmofthestorm]

You make a fair point. That said, I think that it would reduce the number of people willing/able/non-lazy enough to break it. Remember, boring DRM = less interesting.

More importantly, it wouldn't dissuade honest customers. We can NEVER stop pirates.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Creepy Crawler]

Pirates are a cost of business. And even many companies have encouraged pirates (Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia--prior to buyout). Even Metallica supported them, until their Napster blow-out.

What they ought to fear is Customers switching over to the evil side. Crap like DRM encourages behaviors like no-cd cracks, serial gens, and other fixing tech. When the real paying customers realize that the pirate Arrrr versions are without anti-user tech, and simple to install... Well, why pay for crap quality when you can get better quality for free?

That's why I'm pro-DRM. 200 Million pissed off no-longer-buying customers WILL change copyright law and anti-user tech.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[calmofthestorm]

You just convinced me to support DRM, preferably as nefarious and evil as possible. Congratulations.

Idea: implant compliance chips in people's necks as part of the installation procedure (but don't tell them it's happening). Then we can send jolts of pain whenever they try to use cheating programs.

Quick, let's patent it!

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Creepy Crawler]

What I would love to see is Microsoft changing their activation structure to that of EA.

Once you pass your 2/3/5 installs, you have to beg for activation, which can be denied. One would have to provide the receipts from purchase of computer with OEM license. Now, their policy is to ask, in so many words, "Are you pirating?" I wonder what a user would run if they technically cant run Windows??? U..? U..bu..? Nah.

I'd also like to see HDCP turned on for all Blu-disks. You dont have specific ordained equipment? No-play for you!

I'd also like for SD encryption to take hold and hold your digital camera files in ransom. The SD group built in DRM, but most people dont know that. Linux cant use the DRM either (surprise).

There's a truckload of anti-user tech in the forms of DRM, hidden crippling, and other non-approved actions already installed. I'd like to see the screws that are already present just turned a few cranks to let everybody feel the world of hurt.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Ash-Fox]

What about watermarking as DRM?

"We know game 3134 sent to WH Smith chain of stores is being distributed illegally." ...

Not really useful?

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[calmofthestorm]

Fair point, I was thinking more along the lines of online distribution

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Ash-Fox]

Fair point, I was thinking more along the lines of online distribution

Okay, so let's assume you have the credit card information of the original person (majority of piracy comes from Russian and Chinese groups I believe) who bought the game and some how his copy ended up getting in piracy stuff. Now what?

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[nog_lorp]

Yea, you have the right to sell it. But they have the right to turn it into a coaster before you do, if you agree to the license terms. If you don't agree to the license terms you aren't installing it anyways, so you can resell it.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Macrat]

Except that you only bought a limited right to use license... You don't own any rights to resell the CD. (All hail corporate America!)

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[snuf23]

From Wikipedia's article on First Sale Doctrine

"In a more recent case involving software EULA's and first-sale rights Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)[1], the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a ruling which appears to contradict the position of the district courts in California and Texas. The first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." In addition, the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"

The issue is rather muddled.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Anonymous Coward]

You cal sell it without any problem as that is your right.

However, because it can't be installed by the buyer, they won't be willing to pay anything for it.

So, how can you sell something that has no value?

Ergo, no re-sale market.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[Uberbah]

Except of course that shrinkwrap licenses are irrelevant and unenforceable.

Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers

[WNight]

Judge is a retard. The clicking happened after the paying, therefore it's a sale.

Look at all the crappy programmers around. Now realize that same percentage of judges are going to be complete droolers. Especially when you take into account the fact that they're government employees.

Activation? What Activation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The version I just got off of usenet didn't ask me to... oh, nevermind, that's right, DRM is only meant to piss off ACTUAL customers.

I'll be enjoying my drmFREE game now. kthxbye.

Re:Activation? What Activation?

[jez9999]

Unfortunately we can't use the online Spore creature sharing community thingy, which sounded cool, but oh well. :-(

Re:Activation? What Activation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just installed it from a friend's disc. Then copied over the cracked SporeApp.exe. I'm not going to waste my money on drm. I would have happily bought this game if it wasn't for the drm.

Re:Activation? What Activation?

[WNight]

Yeah, because it's undoubtedly protected by super-secr3t encryption. There's no way a hacker could ever look at the output from Spore's server and figure out how to distribute their own creatures.

In another example of the real product sucking more, you'd probably need the cracked version to use 3rd party downloaded creatures. The updates EA pushes will simply be incorporated into the pirated game, giving sensible pirates the best of both worlds.

You're fixing the wrong problems!

[91degrees]

Having to have a CD in the drive is a minor inconvenience. Easily solved (put the CD in the drive. any legitimate user will have one).

Having to call EA to persuade them to let you install the game a sixth time is a potential inconvenience. EA may not exist in a year or two. I might still want to play the game if EA doesn't exist! We're still leasing. Just because we're leasing on more generous terms doesn't mean we're getting a better deal. They've clobbered any potential resale value.

If piracy is low, EA will assume this works and use this scheme every time.

Pirate this as well!

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[UncleTogie]

Having to have a CD in the drive is a minor inconvenience. Easily solved (put the CD in the drive. any legitimate user will have one).

I see... Just how how many copies of ONE game should I buy due to disk wear?

I had to buy ANOTHER copy of C&C:Renegade to replace the disk worn from years of use... just so I could PLAY the game I supposedly had rights to play. I wish people would quit assuming that the only people that use no-CD cracks are those that're pirating the game.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[Stevecrox]

The number you need to call to get your installation revalidated isn't free, from the UK your looking at something like £1/£1.50 a minute to get you perfectly legitimate copy of a game working.

People on slashdot have frequently complained about about Windows activation which ues a free number (no matter where you are) asks you 2-3 simple questions (how many machines is this installed on, why are you reinstalling and where did you get the disc) and can be gotten through in roughly 4 minutes. In short you get flagged but the onus is on you to come out and say your a pirate and your assumed to be a normal customer.
Reading the EA forums in can take upto an hour to get through a customer service rep who then seems to go out of there way to accuse you of piracy. EA's spore servers have suffered several technical faults and they don't even have a complete list of all of the valid keys they have distributed.

I agree with you that disc's do wear out and if EA were offering a system similar to Steam I would have probably bought Spore and Red Alert 3. As it stands EA appear to be trying to slip a rental system in through the back door and considering what secuRom does (rootkitting your pc) and the slashdot reaction to the Sony music rootkit fiasco I'm amazed that more people aren't complaining.

I say all this as a person who loves the C&C/Red Alert series, I won't buy a game which has limited re-installs and decides it should be able to root kit my pc to protect itself,

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[Ash-Fox]

Having to call EA to persuade them to let you install the game a sixth time is a potential inconvenience. EA may not exist in a year or two.

The DRM has been cracked already by pirates, like every other game. So not really a problem if EA or any other game company goes belly up.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never heard of a little thing called a "laptop", have you? Some of us do our gaming a goodly distance from our CD-ROM collection.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[cortana]

It seems fairly straightforward to invoice them for your resonable costs in phoning them up. If they don't pay, take them to small claims.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those of us who don't have a CDROM drive in the computer we're using for various reasons. I, for instance, have a spare battery in my laptop instead of an optical drive. I swap in the optical drive when I need it, which is basically when I install software.

I purchased a copy of Neverwinter Nights 2 because I heard it was really good a few months ago. My plan was to install it, and then play when I'm on long flights, commuting to work on the train, etc. Unfortunately, I got screwed over because I don't want to have a CDROM drive both replacing my extra battery as well as consuming ungodly amounts of power spinning up and down *just to check to make sure the disk is there*.

That's moronic, and I will never buy a game again that requires a CD in the drive.

Happily, Diablo 2 finally stopped requiring a CD in the drive, so I did purchase that game.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[Artemis3]

Maybe you only have a single game, or don't switch games often, but i do and i'll tell you its damn annoying. Having working no-cd cracks are a must for me. Of the games i have, i have like 3 whose current no-cd cracks are not working, and its a pain, where did i left that cd again? And worse, the cd detection sometimes fail, it is not 100% reliable, more like 80%, take into account how long it takes for the game to load and then fail to run. This without considering both drive and discs wear.

The games i play are online multiplayer, those need a working serial, and that pretty much ensures validity. The main problem with no-cd cracks is when they update the game, you have to wait for the community to release a new working no-cd crack. This is stupid, DRM and other forms of "copy protection" only punishes paying customers.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[Anonymous Coward]

CD is a mayor inconvenience because if you own a mobile gaming platform you have to carry with you all your games in CD's. Just imagine that you cannot have a "My pictures" folder and everything has to be printed on paper.

Even if you study abroad... you just can carry all the original games with you. I just lost more than 100 euros in original DVD's because they lost my luggage.

Connecting to the internet. Well, I guess you always have internet wherever you go. Lucky Guy. I don't have. I'm not so lucky.

I loved C&C when it was Westwood.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[91degrees]

What are you doing to your discs!?

But really - damaged media has always been a reason to have to buy another copy. It's just one of those things. Even applies to books with ripped pages. The wear and tear on a disc should be fine for several years worth of use. They're read by light.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[jimicus]

It seems fairly straightforward to invoice them for your resonable costs in phoning them up. If they don't pay, take them to small claims.

I'm not sure how well that would work in the UK seeing as the law is fairly clear: the company you buy the product from is liable to ensure that you get what you bought. Not the company who made the product.

Having said that, I'm given to understand that the company you buy the product from is liable for reasonable expenses you incur in getting it to work/rejecting it. So if Game (major UK game retailer) tell you that you have to call EA to get your game working, you might be able to take Game to court for the telephone bill.

Take legal advice before doing this. IANAL.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[91degrees]

Try a little thing called a "CD folder". CD's don't take up a lot of space.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[TheRaven64]

It's also annoying for laptop users. Want to play the game on the train / in the coffee shop / anywhere with no power? Well, the CD check will take an hour off your battery life. Assuming that your laptop even has an internal optical drive, otherwise you need to carry an extra brick around with you just to run the game, along with the CDs for every game you might want to play.

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[compro01]

You are attempting to apply analog rules to digital media. Why exactly should I have to buy a new copy (assuming a new copy is even available) when it is completely technologically viable to make a new copy myself in much less time and likely for much less money?

Re:You're fixing the wrong problems!

[Sj0]

Oh crap, I left my cd folder in a hotel room in Atlanta!

Well, guess I'll have to spend a few thousand dollars replacing all this software now!

I'm such a happy consumer!

Has anyone confirmed three activations on Spore

[DingerX]

Because there are reports circulating that Spore actually has five activations.

In any case, "relaxing to five" is still a kick in the crotch, or would be if EA didn't censor that part of my creatures.

Re:Has anyone confirmed three activations on Spore

[Dr_Barnowl]

Since it's server side, I'd imagine that you just have to configure a number in a file or table to change the number of activations ; perhaps Spore and Red Alert are on the same database?

Three activations was widely speculated to be the door-in-the-face, with five "not sounding so bad".

OTOH, Stardock did things the right way ; they got me to fill in a survey (I said - No DRM!), and gave me a 20% coupon code, which encouraged me to buy a game that isn't even released yet. Now that's the right way to market games....

Re:Has anyone confirmed three activations on Spore

[Narishma]

It doesn't matter if it's 3 or 5 or 100. The point is that they can stop you from playing a game you legally purchased. And they shouldn't be able to do that.

Hopefully they'll feel more comfortable?

[xwizbt]

That comment 'Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future' really rankles for some reason. It's as though we're being told 'You were all very naughty for making Spore the most pirated game in history. EA has compromised a little, so perhaps if you're all good little boys and girls EA will compromise even more.' How about no DRM, since it's only the paying customers who are inconvenienced by it.

You want to make it inconvenient for pirates, go ahead. You want to make it inconvenient for paying customers, you end up with more pirates. How about EA puts no DRM on it and maybe consumers will be comfortable enough to buy it?

Thanks for the warning

[the eric conspiracy]

Limited installs is not acceptable. I am off to cancel my Red Alert preorder and leave a nasty review.

Re:Thanks for the warning

[ThePawArmy]

Just Canceled mine, Now... what new game to buy.

Re:Thanks for the warning

[VVrath]

If you like supporting indie developers that don't piss you off with DRM, it might be worthwhile looking at Multiwinia!
</spam>

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[91degrees]

what's the right number? 100?

Well, there's the point. If I need to install it 101 times, why should they stop me? There shouldn't be a limit. I can get hold of a pirated copy really quite easily. What this does do is prevent resale. I can get a copy of C&C3 quite easily off ebay. EA aren't going to make a penny from this sale. This is the point. This reduces the value to the customer. It removes the customer's ownership.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[garett_spencley]

"I'm not really sure what's the way to go on it, but I know posting some BS FUD on Amazon like "SONY ROOTKITTED ME OMG!" and claiming victory when they raise the install limit to 5 is not the way to go."

I buy from Amazon a lot.. and I've also been waiting anxiously for Spore. So I went on over to Amazon the other day to pre-order it and was a little shocked to see 1 star ratings. So I read the reviews. They were a very far cry from "SONY ROOTKITTED ME OMG!". They were thorough, intelligent, well thought-out and actually educated me on the whole securom thing as I haven't been on /. that much lately and missed the article(s) about Spore's DRM.

Anyway, the comments actually persuaded me to not buy the game. I don't feel like paying hard-earned money for something that will only install X number of times (even if the number is 1,000 I don't care. Like other people I've still got games that are 15+ years old that I install every once in a while for old-time's sake) and will phone home and require an Internet connection every time I play it etc.

Customer feedback is the single most important thing that a business needs to pay attention to in order to succeed. Restaurants can not grow without reading comment cards and responding to their customers complaints and suggestions. Game companies can not grow by pissing off their customers. If EA ignores the negative feedback about this DRM then they deserve to be out of business in a couple of years. I was going to e-mail them to explain why I decided not to buy Spore but I couldn't find a contact address. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Not about piracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."

It's NOT about piracy, it's about removing the ability to transfer your game to someone else (used game sales, lending to a friend, etc).

Re:Not about piracy...

[Vlobulle]

So much true.

When Spore was released, I downloaded the iso, mounted, installed, put the crack, et voila. Not a single different line from usual. Works like a charm.

Their aim is definitely to shot at the second-hand market.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[cryptodan]

(including Steam!)

When and if VALVe falls over dead, they will release a patch that will allow you to play your games unauthenticated.

Inverted Bait and Switch

[CharonX]

Ah, the good old Baid and Switch trick, but this time done in reverse.
First they try to force-feed us with some outright horrible DRM, and now they try to sell us a slighly lighter variant of this DRM as an "improvement".
I promised myself never to buy a DRM laden "can't ever resell" game. That's also the reason why I never bought HL2 or Bioshock. If I BUY a game I want to OWN it, and not only be able to install and/or play the game at the publisher's pleasure.

Re:Inverted Bait and Switch

[init100]

I was going to write essentially the same thing. Pushing something extremely much in one direction and then easing it marginally in the other does not count as a "compromise".

Just like Spore, Red Alert 3 is now another game to put on my No Buy list, despite previously having been on the Will Buy list.

DRM in games must go!

[LoRdTAW]

Why is it we still have silly piracy protection like starforce and securom? Just the other day I was fighting with Crysis, it suddenly would hang when launched. What was worse was that damn securom CD icon that hijacks your mouse cursor wouldn't go away until a reboot. So what did I have to do? Go to game copy world and download a patched "no DVD" exe for a game I BOUGHT WITH MY MONEY! Now what is sad. The execs should pull their heads out of their asses and see that they are wasting dev time and money with buggy and possibly destructive DRM. Piracy cant be defeated with silly cd check mechanisms, cd keys, phone homes, or dongles. It just doesn't work and will be cracked within days. Please stop screwing us after we already paid for the software.

Fuck EA and all their studios that bow under pressure to "protect" their IP. Spore sounds like an amazing game but that will be marred for many who have to fight with suckrom constantly crashing. Looks like another legit game that will have to be cracked to work. And ONLY 5 installs? What happens after 5 years if I want to play again? Will there be someone at an EA support desk to give me a new key? What if EA goes under? Unbelievable.

Re:DRM in games must go!

[Aereus]

I spent 6 hours trying to get Brothers in Arms to run "legitimately" on my PC after buying it. I eventually gave up and downloaded the no DVD crack to get it running. Quite sad.

Re:DRM in games must go!

[Creepy Crawler]

Why even buy it?

Pirate version on Piratebay is pre-cracked and works 100%.

Your paid for version doesnt work 100%.

Re:DRM in games must go!

[Dr_Barnowl]

Perhaps he has this archaic belief that people should be compensated for their efforts? That if no-one paid for games, there would be nothing but homebrew? Perhaps he enjoys playing games with high production values?

I personally think it's a shame that many of the developers whose games I enjoyed in the 80s have folded, because the ones that are left are benefitting from their hard work. I was never going to buy games back then because I had no disposable income. Now I don't hesitate .... except when confronted by this kind of DRM.

Re:DRM in games must go!

[Creepy Crawler]

---Now I don't hesitate .... except when confronted by this kind of DRM.

Thats precisely what I mean.

There's NO, and I repeat, NO reason to financially reward any company that uses anti-customer software against them. I still get it and use it. They just dont get my money.

Re:DRM in games must go!

[apoc.famine]

I BOUGHT WITH MY MONEY!

And that, sir, is the problem. As long as you keep buying this shit, they'll keep making a profit on it, and they'll keep putting in this shitty-ass DRM.

Until some of these companies go under, the DRM will stay. So pirate their shit, and spend your money on publishers like Stardock, who have minimal to no DRM.

Re:DRM in games must go!

[LoRdTAW]

I feel your pain. Its a lame arms race that they will never win. The DRM people are kept in business by these bozos and when their "copy protection" is broken they make an even more vicious and unstable version. They will NEVER win and should just release a patch that does not include the suckrom, starfarce or whatever in the executable. Even game consoles that were all touted to be hack proof were broken and even BLU-Ray which was also much more secure than DVD is also broken. The phrase "History tends to repeat itself" must elude them and also near-hind-sighted. Maybe they keep hoping the TPM trusted computing nonsense will one day save them from all the evil crackers and pirates.

Re:DRM in games must go!

[LoRdTAW]

Thats a good point but I blame the damn execs and management who have no clue. The dev's (like my brother) really love what they are doing and it pains them when something doesn't work because of buggy copy protection. They would happily kick DRM to the curb where it belongs but they don't have the final say on how the game is shipped. He even uses cracks and patched exe's play his games.

Re:DRM in games must go!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it we still have silly piracy protection like starforce and securom?

Well, duh. Who makes SecuROM? Sony! Why would they want people to buy games on PC when they could be buying the PS3 version instead, which has a much higher royalty rate for them? It's an obvious way to sabotage the PC games market, and it has succeeded quite well over the last few years. EA probably doesn't care since it will get the same royalties anyway. For an insight into how publishers value the PC market compared to consoles, see the minimum spec for "assassins creed" by ubisoft.

What improvement?

[BarneyL]

Spore gave us infinity minus three too few installs.
Red Alert 3 will give us infinity minus five too few installs. Not an improvement in my book.
I don't think the install limit is really about piracy anyway, it's a method to force you to buy the game more than once and to prevent you from buying it second hand.

Re:What improvement?

[ToppDogg]

Spore gave us infinity minus three too few installs.

So infinity to you is six? :)

Re:What improvement?

[MistrBlank]

... no.... Infinity minus 3 is infinity. It gave us infinity too >>few installs. I know, Math is hard.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[DarkSabreLord]

short of the difficulty of offline play, I don't know too many people with genuine complaints about Steam. It doesn't mess up your computer, it doesn't limit how many different machines you can play your games on, it allows for easy access to all the software you have purchased regardless of machine or how many times you may have changed "critical components".

Contrast to having to call to beg for more reinstallations for something as simple as having upgraded your graphics card or needing to reformat...

So its exactly the same

[Tridus]

Everything on RA 3 is exactly the same as Spore, except with a 5 instead of a 3. Nothing has changed. Its clear that EA doesn't get it, and they'll need a few games to completely bomb before they do.

Some Compromise!

[Lord Kano]

EA says they will have staff standing by to grant more installations as necessary on a case by case basis. So, while this still isn't optimal, at least we are getting a compromise.

This is like a rapist saying that instead of anally violating you, he'll settle for oral. It's a shitty compromise.

LK

Re:Some Compromise!

[WDot]

I disagree. The compromise is infinity times less shitty once he removes the requirement of anal violation.

Re:Some Compromise!

[Lord Kano]

The problem is the violation, what hole it is in is secondary.

LK

Re:Some Compromise!

[WDot]

Sorry, what I was actually saying was a horrible, awful joke that implied that there was less fecal matter involved in oral penetration since, at least in most cases, there is less poop in one's mouth.

Re:Some Compromise!

[davolfman]

So they're going to react to the loss of potential sales by spending real money on call centers? Even at Indian rates this is downright lunacy!

Re:Some Compromise!

[Anonymous Coward]

But clearly less shitty, as your analogy so visually demonstrates.

Re:Some Compromise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in that situation a real compromise would be a handjob.

Re:Some Compromise!

[sleeponthemic]

EA says they will have staff standing by to grant more installations as necessary on a case by case basis. So, while this still isn't optimal, at least we are getting a compromise.

This is like a rapist saying that instead of anally violating you, he'll settle for oral. It's a shitty compromise.

LK

Well.. I guess you'll just have to sink your teeth into a solution to this situation and see if that helps things ;-)

Re:Generous terms ? Compromise ? Haha.

[mxs]

I can see a tiny bit of a case for the CD-check (though quite honestly, no, I do not agree with it -- it's YET ANOTHER thing that pirates don't have to deal with. If you have kids, you will definitely not want them to handle unprotected (physically) media too much -- the scratches will be a killjoy; Legitimate owners of games have been using NoCD-patches for AGES; it's ineffective, it inconveniences your customers (the ones that PAY you for the game, no less), etc.

The leasing is not really on any "generous" terms; 5 installs is exactly as bad as 3. 10 would be as bad as 5. Having to justify why you want to install the game again in a few years' time is laughable. Again, pirates do not have to deal with that crap. At all. Generosity would start at services such as you being able to download the entirety of the game if your media is scratched, perhaps by way of submitting your CD key or a picture of the receipt. But hell, that would actually make life easier for customers. Can't have that.

Yes, the submitter seems to be a shill for EA, painting this in a positive light and encouraging not to pirate to show them we appreciate it. No. I do not appreciate it. I own several C&C games. I will not be buying the next one. Congratulations EA, you just lost another sale.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[calmofthestorm]

Plus it works under wine. My pirated versions of Valve games don't. It's more I'm too distrustful of anyone but myself managing my digital rights after too many burns.

The companies are saying trust us. My response is, trust me. You trust me and I won't spread your game. I won't steal it. I have never pirated a game without DRM when I could still buy it legally (sorry Microprose games from '85)

Raise arms against me and see what someone of even average intelligence can do to all your best-laid plans.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[Anonymous Coward]

another plus, unlike securom and other DRM's, it doesn't hide in the background when you arn't playing games. well it can run in background obviously, but it won't be hiding.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[Idolminds]

When and if VALVe falls over dead, they will release a patch that will allow you to play your games unauthenticated.

That's what they say, anyway. We don't know if they really will do that until it actually happens.

Hopefully you've made backups of all your games since you won't be able to redownload them anymore. You could download someone elses backup, which anyone could do. With Steam no longer checking to see if you own the game, I guess that means every game on Steam will be free to anyone that wants it. No cracks. No hacks. Do you think all the publishers that have games on Steam would let that happen?

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[jma05]

I would gladly take CD checks over limited installs any day. Red Alert series is known for its replayability and people play it for years on end, unlike most games. Limited install don't cut it.

EA, let us pick our poison. Enable limited installs only if the I choose the disk check to not bother them. However, the problem seems to be that disk checking is now seen as an unreliable method by the companies.

Also, do these companies plan to ultimately release patches that remove DRM after a set period of time?, say 3-5 years when they won't be running authentication servers or just simply decide that you don't own the game anymore?

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[pipatron]

How on earth will this make any more money to them? Do you think that the lawyers that will handle the closure of the company will care a single bit about releasing a patch? Do you think the programmers that has not been payed for 3 months will care to help out the company one more time? I'm sorry, but you seem to live in some strange universe. Unless there's a signed contract between you and the company, there's a very small chance that they will do anything at all just for goodwill, when they are already in debt and shutting down.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[cryptodan]

Think about all the class action level law suits and everyone's possessions that worked for VALVe being sold off at auctions to get funding for money to pay out to people.

This is good

[KDR_11k]

I liked that on Earth 2160 and I think it's good here too, it even has a positive in the form of not needing the disc to play.

"At least we are getting a compromise"

[Reed Solomon]

EA says they will have staff standing by to grant more installations as necessary on a case by case basis. So, while this still isn't optimal, at least we are getting a compromise. Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."

No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.

COMPROMISE? Yeah, instead of renting a game for 3 installs, you're renting it for 5. WELL WHOOPDEEDOO. I'm not paying for what amounts to a RENTAL. Maybe EA thinks they can buy copyright legislation and force DRM down our throats, but I won't be a part of it. They've pushed me too far.

If the piracy rate is low for their DRM'ed program perhaps they will have one with no DRM? What is wrong with you? NO! If there is ANY DRM AT ALL then it is fair game to pirate. I won't pay for a refrigerator with a lock on it that I can only get food out of if its plugged in to a GE power supply. Screw DRM. Any limits on our consumer rights are crimes against humanity.

This was the stupidest, worst reasoned article I've ever read on slashdot. And I remember the days of Jon Katz.

Boycotting DRM

[Artemis3]

Unless DRM is dropped, I'm not buying games anymore. It was painful enough to deal with "CD must be in drive" hoping for a good no-cd crack to be released by the community; but now this... XP style activation? Limited number of activations? Unacceptable.

Re:Boycotting DRM

[gaspyy]

XP style activation? Limited number of activations?

At least you can reinstall XP/Vista as many times as you want. I know I did.

Re:Boycotting DRM

[bigd0880]

Joke? I want to know how you install XP or Vista that much. I have gotten less then a hand full on OEM versions, 10 installs on professional versions, unlimited only on VLK versions on XP. So yeah, I'd like to know how you guys legally get around that hurdle. To me, Windows activation is just as unacceptable as EA's activation scheme. As long as it is possible to use up one's Windows activations, I can't accept the license terms.

Why fix Red Alert if people are upset about Spore?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why they are fixing the DRM problem with Red Alert if its the people who want to buy Spore are complaining. I wasn't intending to buy Red Alert anyway...so them easing the restrictions on it isn't going to make me want to play it.

Lunacy.

Bad logic hiding at the end, there

[pUr3d0xYk]

"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."

...Why link DRM to piracy rates, when the DRM on Spore made MORE people pirate it, and most DRM doesn't do much of anything to prevent it? All DRM does is f*ck up computers, infringe on people's legitimate rights (like the right of first sale), and anger and inconvenience customers.

If EA wants a good reason to get rid of its poorly-implemented, rights-infringing crap, it couldn't ask for a much better one than "customers hate it and hate you for it".

Fix Spore. Not Red Alert. Duh!

[molotovjester]

I want the DRM with Spore Fixed. How does appeasing the angry people who want Spore have anything to do with the Red Alert?

I wasn't planning on buying Red Alert with 3 installs, 5 or an infinite number.

I would have considering buying spore without the phone home, the CD but fixing Red Alert doesnt make me want to buy it since I didn't want it in the first place.

DRM = Digitally Restricted Media

[sdo1]

Exactly. I was interested in this game and I surely would have bought it had I not learned of the DRM issues. Thank goodness for all of the outcry and press on this otherwise I might have fallen into the trap. I'm not much of a gamer, but the reviews of this game made we want to get it (the complaints hard-core gamers had of it actually made it appeal to me). I like how Will Wright's games are about "playing" rather than "winning".

But the DRM issue made me reconsider. I surely wasn't going to just buy it and install it. I'm just fundamentally opposed to buying things that would prevent me from exercising first sale doctrine. To me, I had two options. Buy it but download the non-crippled pirated version or do nothing. I've decided to do nothing. Buying it would give them $ and they won't learn. Instead, they don't get $50 from me.

EA has done nothing to prevent piracy and by doing this they lowered the intrinsic value of the game and pissed off would-be paying customers. Nicely done, EA. This issue is costing them millions. Good.

-S

What

[Anonymous Coward]

"if the piracy rate for the game is low"
Why the hell do they think Spore is the #1 pirated game? Because of DRM! Why can't they use NO DRM, and see how that goes?

Re:What

[Ash-Fox]

Why the hell do they think Spore is the #1 pirated game? Because of DRM! Why can't they use NO DRM, and see how that goes?

I don't think that would influence the piracy figures much. I know people pirating the game before it was even out in the stores.

Re:What

[Mascot]

Why can't they use NO DRM, and see how that goes?

Because it would probably lead to higher sales and show the world they have been complete idiots for a very long time.

The Brad Wardell interview from a bit back lays it out nicely. Removing DRM gave higher sales. Allowing the return of games for full refund gave higher sales.

This change is no change at all

[E-Sabbath]

It still will be using SecuROM, which blows out your DVD drive, to the point of not letting you play the darn game if you have a DVD-writer that falls under certain conditions.

The problem is not authentication and so on. The problem is the DRM software is inherently broken.

Also, the DRM in Spore actually breaks the game: you can only have one Spore account per copy of the game. So your little brother can't have his own account, contrary to what it says in the manual. This is solely an adaptation because of the DRM.

No sodding SecuROM. No breaking our computers to play your games.

The thing that really sucks about this

[bill_kress]

For the first time, we have had the slightest impact on a manufacturer by spreading the truth.

I bet you anything I know what the next step is.

Within a year, mentioning DRM problems in a review on Amazon will be cause for removing your comment.

In the meantime, they will just chalk up their drop in sales to pirating.

Bend over, it's on the way.

EA isn't reading users!

[Anonymous Coward]

EA did it again... They didn't learn anything from the Spore fiasco they caused and now Red Alert 3????

Ok... one game I'l NOT buy. I will not buy never again a game with DRM, limited installations or online activations. NEVER AGAIN!

Looks like EA isn't learning from the the Amazon protest, and they complain about piracy? C'mon! Don't be stupid!

EA: Value your customers! Until you remove all those crap from games, I and a bunch other will not buy from you anymore.

It's All About

[Nom du Keyboard]

It's all about one thing. Absolutely killing the rental and resale market. You can't even give it to your kid brother when you're done with it.

Be honest! Spore is nothing more than a very expensive rental game now -- not a purchase.

And the only way to make this all go away is to absolutely refuse to buy their product because other manufacturers will follow suit.

I've never pirated a game, but if I wanted to try out Spore I'd pirate a cracked copy of this one.

Re:It's All About

[rsmith-mac]

This is definitely true, but it's worth nothing who is being targeted here. It's not the consumer EA is going for, it's the retailer that EA is after. Gamestop and their ilk, who up until fairly recently have largely been traditional retailers, have heavily gone in to the used game business. It's very profitable for them, they buy a game for pennies and then resell it for MSRP-$5, pocketing a nice profit in the process.

The Entertainment Software Association and its members have taken great offense to this, not on the grounds that a used game market hurts their profits (it does, but then again it has existed for years) but rather the amazing conflict of interest it has created with retailers. Gamestop doesn't want to sell you a new game, there's no profit in it for them, they want to sell you that used game that they got for next to nothing. And it's expanding, Best Buy and Walmart want to get in to the game too. In short, the guys that are selling games in meatspace are doing everything they can to drive customers away from new copies of the game and towards used copies.

It's this that has EA and the other publishers in flames. Their sales of single player games are getting murdered, and in some cases the meatspace retailers are making more money than the publisher did, because the same game is being circulated 2-4 times giving the retailer the chance to make a profit nearly equal to the retail price of the game, 2-4 times over. The problem is a simultaneous loss of revenue on the publisher's side, along with watching someone else co-opt your product and make far more money (virtually all profit) by driving away your customers.

So this is why we're going to see things like SecuROM and other DRM schemes that prevent second-hand copies from being playable, along with platforms like Steam and Impulse, and games with a MP component that requires account activation. All of these make reselling a game impossible. Until digital distribution can completely usurp meatspace sales, they're going to want to shut down Gamestop's activities as much as possible through other means. And while the consumers aren't the target, they'll be the ones to suffer the most.

What's going to be most interesting is how the next-generation consoles are going to deal with this. These changes are coming to the PC first because it's an open platform that allows such a change immediately, while there's no way to close the hole with consoles. Publishers are going to want to put an end to retailers engaging in second-hand sales with their console games too, so I'm left wondering how they'll go about it since the physical media has always been considered a valid token of game ownership.

Re:It's All About

[Nanidin]

I was going to buy RA3 - I rarely buy games, but I loved the RA / C&C series. Now that I know that it's coming out with such a "screw the consumer" attitude attached to it, I will definitely not be purchasing it. I will be getting the game before it is available in retail now, I'm sure. For free, without restrictions or phoning home. Props to all of the groups out there that make this possible - without you, PC gaming would be dieing much faster at the hands of companies like EA. I'm seriously at the point where if I could find the contact information of individual artists (in the case of music) or developers, I'd gladly send "donations" along their way for their hard work so I could still contribute to the creators without supporting the RIAA/EA/etc

Install in a VM

[Nom du Keyboard]

Can one install this game in a VM so as to limit the spread of its DRM to just that VM? If not, then there's yet another reason not to buy.

Re:Install in a VM

[nurb432]

I have heard the securom wont work with a VM

Re:Install in a VM

[jimicus]

Can one install this game in a VM so as to limit the spread of its DRM to just that VM? If not, then there's yet another reason not to buy.

I'm not certain, but AFAIK most virtualisation systems are lousy WRT 3d graphics.

A Small Turd is Still a Turd

[Anonymous Coward]

"What's your plan to minimise piracy of Spore?" said the EA executive, pursing his lips at the greasy looking man in the corner.

"Hsss- we'll bundle it with a giant, stinking turd!" the greasy man replied, grinning triumphantly.

The executive paused a moment. "How will that help us sell more games?" he asked, leaning forward in his chair with interest.

The greasy man just chuckled. "It's a magical turd," he answered, "it prevents the user from installing it more than three times!"

"Genius!" beamed the executive. "I'm sure nobody will mind the smell all that much..."

Two months later...

The executive frowned. Sales were down- the reviews were bad. Customers didn't like paying money for a box with a turd in it, and his sales weren't going up at all- in fact they were doing the opposite! He called the greasy man back to his office for a chat.

"Don't worry," said the greasy man, his wide, inviting smile ever so placating, "You'll still retain control. We'll bundle Red Alert with a smaller turd- less smell that way!"

The executive frowned again. "Will this work?" he asked, "What if there are more complaints?"

The greasy man just grinned ever-wider. "A turd is still a turd... we'll bundle ever smaller ones, until we find out what people are willing to accept... then we'll gradually pick it back up again." The man's voice was soothing, the power his words promised seductive. "It'll work eventually... I promise."

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[Anonymous Coward]

Just link us to this promise, there's a good chap.

DRM + High Cost = Piracy

[houbou]

The last 2 big games I bought was Doom 3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein.. and the expansion pack for Doom 3.

And that's been a while, I know, I know.

But whatever the protection on these games are, I certainly don't mind. Got to register, have the CD in the first time, that's pretty much it.

But paying for a game, and having the amount of times I can re-installed it controlled is not good, and forcing the CD in the game at all times, without being able to even make a legitimate backup isn't good either.

I will never buy games like that. This DRM is causing pirating in the first place, that and the high cost of the games.

Because I loved the Doom franchise, I didn't mind forking out the 70$ back then, when it came out. Same for Wolfenstein, although as I recall, I only paid about 45$ for the game.

But in the end, when a game is more than 30$ for PC, Unless it's got a killer review and I mean a KILLER review, I will more than likely not going to buy it and no matter how cheap the game is in price, if I have to suffer that level of DRM, such as limited amount of installs and having the CD in at all times, I'm keeping my money and spending it on console games like the Wii.

Anyways, that's how I see it.

Re:DRM + High Cost = Piracy

[Spatial]

Doom 3 wasn't all roses. When I bought it, it wouldn't run because I had a virtual disc tool installed. I had to crack it to play. Same shit for Far Cry. Nowadays I don't even bother trying to run the game without the crack.

Re:DRM + High Cost = Piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Man I just downloaded, installed, and that was it.
Of course quickly deleted it.

Thank You, People of Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in an Apple store, cash in hand, ready to buy Spore as a gift for someone else. Fortunately for me, the store didn't have Spore in stock yet, and I went home empty-handed. Since then, I've had the opportunity to read a lot of your comments and have realized how terrible a gift Spore and its ridiculous DRM would have been.

Thanks, Slashdot, for having my back on this one. Any alternate gift ideas?

Re:Thank You, People of Slashdot

[Macgrrl]

Civillisation IV

Re:Thank You, People of Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Spore torrented ;)

EA management

[gaspyy]

Sometimes I get the feeling that the management of a company seems determined to undermine their position and drive their company to the ground... ... or maybe the EA execs never played a game in their life.

Take Red Alerts' main competitor: Starcraft. There are people still playing it, now, more than 12 years after its release (and I understand there'sa huge community). I still have Red Alert 1 on a shelf and I actually played it a little last year, just for the good time's sake.

I have many games I cherish, despite not having a lot of time to play. Last month I replayed Lucas Arts' Full Throttle (through Dos Box).

Limiting a game to 5 installs is more idiotic than limiting a movie to 5 viewings (I don't watch again 90% of the movies, and there are only 1 or 2 I saw 5 times) and I doubt that those who actually bought Spore were fully aware of the implications. Not to worry, they will learn. And when they do, EA will have less customers...

Re:EA management

[davolfman]

Not only are their people still playing Starcraft, you can still go into many stores and buy it! It's the Anti-Madden. So of course EA doesn't get it.

Re:EA management

[bemo56]

Last month I replayed Lucas Arts' Full Throttle (through Dos Box).

You should check out Scumm VM. It plays all the old school Lucasarts games (when they were good), and has been ported to many platforms.

Morally?

[phorm]

Depends on who you talk to. Personally I'm going to go with:

Version 3: Wait for Starcraft 2 to come out from Blizzard, but I might just pick up a used disk from RA3 and use "Version 2" once I have the legit media.

The DRM issue is blown out of proportion

[koalapeck]

First let me be clear, the way EA is handling DRM with Spore and various other titles coming out soon, is absolute crap. That being said, let me offer my two cents. Even though I follow sites like Slashdot with a fair bit of regularity, I had never even heard of Spore's overkill DRM until after I installed the game.

My point is, you're all looking at it from the standpoint of well-educated, technical people. Everyone is saying this is a big deal and the world is going to end, when in reality, the average person probably has absolutely no clue of what's happening behind the scenes. The vast majority are going to purchase Spore, or Red Alert 3 and they will never have a negative thing to say about the whole process, or EA themselves.

At the end of the day I doubt EA is overly concerned with the number of people threatening to no longer purchase their products. Their moves here were probably more about trying to fix a bit of bad PR than anything else. That definitely doesn't make their actions right, but that's the way it is currently.

Of course, now that I've learned about the DRM "features" in Spore, I'm pretty much convinced that buying *any* PC games these days is simply a bad idea. I doubt I'll be buying a PC game from any supplier in the near future.

SecuROM vs. Process Explorer

[Anonymous Coward]

I often run Process Explorer instead of Task Manager in Windows. Do securom products work with process explorer running or do I need to reboot and not load process explorer in order to play a game?

piracy rate

[nurb432]

By keeping and not eliminating DRM, they have ensured that it will continue to rise for their products.

I call shens. NO CHANGE.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is no change whatever from what the restrictions were BEFORE Spore was released.


This is no change. This is EA saying 'You didn't buy our last shit pie. WTF? BUY THE NEXT ONE OR ELSE.'

Little easings of DRM restrictions are just cops loosening the cuffs. You're still getting screwed, just a little more lube.

SAY NO.

Send an e-mail to EA's president

[Rastl]

I just sent off an e-mail to the president of EA telling him I'll never purchase one of his products that includes DRM.

The address didn't bounce immediately so it might actually be good.

John.Riccitiello@ea.com

Your turn. Flood the fscker with messages telling him we don't want DRM.

Re:Send an e-mail to EA's president

[pne]

Oh please. Like he even reads his messages himself rather than having a secretary to filter out messages such as yours before they reach his eyes.

Re:Send an e-mail to EA's president

[Rastl]

One message, yes. Several thousand, possibly not.

That's the entire reason for an e-mail campaign. To show that it isn't just a few pissy people. Look at the response after the Amazon campaign. This one is just more directed.

And no, I don't expect an answer. Or if I do get one it will be a canned 'thank you for your comments' kind of crap.

At least I've taken a proactive step. And yours is?

Re:Send an e-mail to EA's president

[xmod2]

http://consumerist.com/5045443/consumerists-4-most-frequently-given-ways-to-kick-ass

The Consumerist's 4 Most Frequently Given Ways To Kick Ass. An Executive Email Carpet Bomb usually works best by sending mail to as many executive accounts as you can get a hold of.

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=ERTS.O&WTmodLOC=C4-Officers-5

Here is a list of executives from Electronic Arts. It's untested, but if the first.last@ea.com nomenclature holds true, it may be a good place to start for a list of addresses.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[Ash-Fox]

I guess that means every game on Steam will be free to anyone that wants it. No cracks. No hacks. Do you think all the publishers that have games on Steam would let that happen?

They seem to be allowing it with Steampac.

MacBook Air not legitimate?

[tepples]

Having to have a CD in the drive is a minor inconvenience. Easily solved (put the CD in the drive. any legitimate user will have one).

Why should I have to carry an external drive, which adds weight and drains my computer's battery, just to play games? Or do you think any owner of a MacBook Air or other personal computer without a built-in optical drive is not a "legitimate user"?

Re:MacBook Air not legitimate?

[91degrees]

Do you think a shorter battery life and an extra 380g to carry is a comparable problem to having to always have a working internet connection, having to spend an hour on the phone when things go wrong, and to lose any resale value? Seems the latter is a bigger problem.

Re:MacBook Air not legitimate?

[apoc.famine]

And interestingly, portables are the fastest growing segment of the computer market. I wonder how long it will take for publishers to realize that cd checking might be costing them substantial sales.

Now that you mention it, I know several people who use their MBP or beastly Dell as a gaming machine. In some cases, their primary gaming machine.

Re:Generous terms ? Compromise ? Haha.

[Jorophose]

Not to mention lowering the life of your optical drives...

But it does have one advantage; you can have a massive game split across the hard drive and CD.

Case by case? oO"

[LunarEffect]

So...what does "case by case basis" mean? They might give you more installations but don't have to if they don't want to? oO"

Thanks Anyway EA

[Intrinsic]

Anyone that try's to control how someone else uses a thing does not deserve to be apart of the world community at large. Weather its 3 activations or 5. You don't have a right to dictate those terms onto peoples lives, and it doing so you make the things worse in the world by preventing freedom at large. No product or revenue stream is worth that price, and its mindset is insane.

EA are killing PC gaming

[JustNiz]

This is a tiny compromise, and doesn't do anything to address the legitimate concerns voiced by everyone over Spore and other DRM-infested games.

Apart from the fact that I have to reinstall windows every few months because I frequrently upgrade my hardware, and that windows is so badly architected that it gets slower and fills up more and more diskspace on its own over time, I have a moral issue too: Why should I ever have to seek someone elses permission to use a product I already paid for?

Consequently I refuse to buy any software that has any installation counters/limits at all because of the fear that at sometime in the future its down the continued existence of EA and some arbitrary corporate decisions that allow me to reinstall my own game.

You may think that EA won't ever stop you reinstalling Spore or other DRM'd games if you make a ligitimate case, but thats probaby exactly what all those customres who bought DRM'd music from Microsofts MSN music store thought too. Then Microsoft arbitrarily changed their DRM scheme and left millions of customres unable to play music files they had paid for. My point is we've already seen one giant corp do it.

Pirate Bay was not really an option for me before, but this kind of DRM is really making it one.
 

Re:EA are killing PC gaming

[mjwx]

EA is not killing PC gaming, EA is killing EA's share in PC Gaming. PC gaming has been declared dead more times than Lazarus but we're still here, we outlasted Sega and all the other consoles generations to date and we'll outlast this generation as well. PC game publishers come and go, EA's empire is waning and they are doing anything they can to stop it but it wont be enough. There are plenty of replacement publishers in the PC market (Ubisoft, 2K, Stardock, Valve) and new platforms Steam (Valve) and Impulse (Stardock) are making it easier for new games (especially Indie games) to get to the market, EA, Ubi and 2K are really behind the innovation curve on delivery methods for the PC market.

EA have the largest market share in the PC arena, this is slipping however with increased competition from established players (Ubisoft, 2K) and newer players (Valve, Stardock, various Indie and Casual dev's). EA is worried that their share in the PC market is not increasing like it is in the console market (the console market is harder for new publishers to break into) but aren't ready to quit the PC market and go completely to console (as the PC market is alive and well, even for "generic sports game 2009") but as I said EA's market share is slipping as more and more competition enters the PC market (due to a low cost of entry) and EA has become a lot like Microsoft when it comes to competition but it cant pull the same kind of tricks as MS can in the OS market(lock-in, strong arm dev's and suppliers). Eventually I think that EA will quit the PC market all together due to increased competition. With any luck EA's death throws in the PC market will demonstrate the futility of excessive DRM, 2K also needs to learn this lesson (I remember Bioshock). If EA and the like exit the PC market the market (demand) will not diminish but rather it will create a vacuum of supply which will be filled by other smaller suppliers. The majority of game development is done by smaller development houses who contract themselves out to large publishers. The doom and gloom on the PC game market is uncalled for and unfounded especially with some publishers clearly wielding large cluebats, publishers like Valve (Gabe Newell, "pirates are just unserverd customers") and Stardock (Brad Wardell, "pirates don't count") making sense, not overreacting (to the Piracy issue) and doing quite well for themselves.

You may think that EA won't ever stop you reinstalling Spore or other DRM'd games if you make a ligitimate case, but thats probaby exactly what all those customres who bought DRM'd music from Microsofts MSN music store thought too. Then Microsoft arbitrarily changed their DRM scheme and left millions of customres unable to play music files they had paid for. My point is we've already seen one giant corp do it.

The corporations can deactivate purchased Music, they have already done so and because of this people are beginning to see the problem with DRM, not a moment too soon but fortunately in time, the damage done by DRM is still reversible. DRM's biggest defence is that people are ignorant, they dont know about DRM or what DRM can do, high profile shut-downs like MSN music will work to reverse this.

What is needed is a DRM classification system similar to the ratings system, for example a class 0 DVD contains no DRM, Class 1 contains region coding and going all the way up to Class 5 which has a limited number of installs, has a program that checks authenticity (secuROM) and calls home. If the restrictions of DRM were clearly printed on the box next to the OFLC/PEGI (or your equivalent organisation) classification publishers would be less enthusiastic about putting excessive restrictions onto games, movies and music.

Re:EA are killing PC gaming

[JustNiz]

>>What is needed is a DRM classification system similar to the ratings system,

Thats a really good idea. Unfortunately I don't see the labels willingly implementing this as it uncovers info they don't want customers to realise before they get their money. The labels don't care about the customers realising after they get it home as they have their money and most stores have a no-refund policy on software anyway so customers are stuck with it.

On that basis though, I'm surprised there hasn't been a class-action lawsuit against some of the worst offenders (bioshock, spore) for failing to sufficiently describe on the outside of the box all the nasty shit they do install on your PC.

Re:EA are killing PC gaming

[mjwx]

Thats a really good idea. Unfortunately I don't see the labels willingly implementing this

It doesn't need to be entirely voluntary. Whilst getting a classification from the OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification) is voluntary the fact is that no Australian retailer will touch your product if it hasn't been classified by the OFLC (the OLFC is not run by corporations but still does need a serious going over with a cluebat, mainly because of inconsistent ratings).

Ratings commissions set up by the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) or the EU equivalent can effectively make this choice for the publishers, they don't even need to print it on the box, it can be put on the outside of the shrink wrap as a sticker. The biggest problem is convincing the ACCC that it is necessary and waiting the 18 months to get this cleared through the bureaucracy.

The labels don't care about the customers realising after they get it home

Exactly.
Once you have their money never give it back. The trick is to get people to notice the problems before they purchase it, after that the publishers begin to care.

On that basis though, I'm surprised there hasn't been a class-action lawsuit against some of the worst offenders (bioshock, spore) for failing to sufficiently describe on the outside of the box all the nasty shit they do install on your PC.

I'm fairly certain there already has been a law suit over this (not a class action) with Bioshock. The suit got nowhere because there are no laws to govern this (technology always moves faster than laws).

5 wow!

[BlindShep]

How generous, i can Install RA3 a whole Five Times! Wow! Just, like, i'm in awe man! EA - You've just lost another customer. I was going to buy RA, not now though. Idiots.

Fine with me

[Kelz]

I try not to get too caught in the DRM flamewar, but I think this is fine. I'm more than happy to activate a product once (I'm used to it from playing online; in fact it helps keep the online market cleaner). Also 5 installs (before calling) is.. just fine actually. I'm upgrading my PC in December, so if everything fails that's 2 installs total.

I'm not averse to actually calling a person to explain why I've upgraded my PC 5 times, or reformatted 5 times, or X or Y. I'd imagine the VAST majority of people or even gamer's aren't reinstalling their OS or games even once every 6 months.

Re:Fine with me

[Adradis]

Other then that SecureROM will eat activation tokens if it detects hardware changes, and no one has given out information on what defines a "hardware change'. People have said they lost tokens just by unplugging/plugging in an external hard drive, upgrading RAM, etc. It's quite easy to eat a full series of install tokens if your the unlucky sap whose system does not play nicely with SecureROM.

Do they not even understand why people are upset?

[Subliminalbits]

Why is it so hard for EA to understand why people are upset about an install limit? It is not at all uncommon to install a computer game at least five or ten times. There are plenty of instances where people will even install their games more often for perfectly legitimate reasons. Yes, it would be nice to not need a crack to play without the disk, but what good is that if 5 installs later I can't even play the game. It is completely unacceptable to be required to call EA and beg to be able to play what I payed for. I read an EA employee's comment that said something along the lines of Spore has only had a very small number of people need more than 3 installs. I think they're missing the point. If your game hasn't even been out a year and you already have people hitting their limit, then that should be a clue that you don't have a long term solution. Saying, "our bad, we'll update it to a max of 5 installs and you can negotiate with us for more on a case by case basis" is like trying to fix a hole in the space shuttle's insulating tiles with a layer of duct tape.

Waiter!

[Alsee]

Waiter! There's SHIT in my soup!

I'm sorry sir. Let me fix that for you.
Here you go sir! All fixed.

What the FUCK! This is the same goddamn bowl of soup with the exact same fucking piece of shit in it!!

Yes sir, but now there is slightly less shit in your soup.

-

Time To Use Big Content's Methods

[FSWKU]

It's time to use Big Content's methods against them. Will Wright and Maxis should file suit against EA for illegally damaging the sales of this game through the use of malware. Find every 1-star review of the game that pledges not to buy the game on every online retailer that carries the title. Treat EVERY one of these as a lost sale. Is it really a lost sale? Probably not. But if they want to argue that 1 download = 1 lost sale, then they should adhere to this as well. And since merely giving money equal to the sale is not enough, according to the industry, set the damages at some arbitrary level. Let's say $5000 per lost sale due to DRM issues. From Amazon alone, that should be about $10,000,000 USD in damages.

If the content industry wants to ruin people's lives under the assumption that downloading games/movies/music inderectly harms the artists that create them, they need to be held accountable by the same rules. People refusing to buy due to publisher meddling is DIRECTLY harming the artists and developers in this case. They (the publisher) need to either admit that they were wrong and greedy, or be painted with the exact same brush they seem to want everyone else painted with.

Someone needs to send a message to these assholes that treating your PAYING CUSTOMERS like criminals will NOT be tolerated.

Re:Time To Use Big Content's Methods

[Dgawld]

I agree that the DRM is extremely illogical when it comes to a computer game. Having the need to verify your right to install what you paid for, after you may have had to reformat a drive , bought a new computer etc, is just really dumb. But openly stating that there is a need for a Large Company to sue another Large company for xxx,000,000 US dollars is just ridiculous. The system in the US for filing lawsuits has almost evolved into a piece of humor. I'm most likely wrong when i say almost humorous.

Re:Time To Use Big Content's Methods

[Nathanbp]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the people who should really be suing EA are EA's shareholders, who have a chance (a small chance, but a chance), of proving that EA was not doing the right thing for it's profits by releasing games with DRM.

Re:Time To Use Big Content's Methods

[ToasterMonkey]

They will keep using your methods against you.

You will create a big stir over "DRM in A is BAD", and they will respond with "GOOD DRM in B". See how that's done?
It will hit Slashdot, and they will reap tons of free advertising for yet another DRM laden game.

Personally, I don't care, this greatly amuses me. Keep making a bigger deal of DRM, go ahead, maybe someday they will actually release a big title without DRM. With all the hype you'll have generated them by then, they'll make shit-tons of money with "Z is DRM FREE", and you'll just change your tune to "constant internet connection required is bad, mmmmkaaay."

Go on, fight the good fight though, it's funny.

Re:Time To Use Big Content's Methods

[Anonymous Coward]

EA owns Maxis (and by extension, Will Wright).

Here's a compromise for them...

[SnprBoB86]

Since they are relaxing their restrictions, we can relax our complaints:

This game should get thousands of TWO (2) star reviews on Amazon!

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[Firehed]

This is the magic of running a business as something than a sole proprietorship (which I assure you Valve is doing). Customers can sue the company for whatever reason, but the employees themselves and their assets (from the janitorial staff through the C-level execs) are completely protected*. If the company falls over dead one day, precisely what do you expect to receive as the result of winning a class-action? They have no assets for you to collect on. Maybe you could pick up a cardboard cutout of Gordon Freeman that was inadvertently left in a closet. They may not even have enough remaining infrastructure to release that patch that frees everything, never mind have any money left to pay out lawsuit winnings (oh the beauty of bankruptcy). With luck, one of their former coders could whip something together and throw it on TPB, but that could well be the extent of it.

I don't see this happening to Steam for quite some time, but it applies pretty much everywhere. Dealing with a dying company isn't likely to accomplish a whole lot.

*Protected from lawsuits relating to their employer, anyways. Obviously if they've personally wronged you, it's a different story.

The summary is a little off...

[10053r]

"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future." Lemme correct that for you: "Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is HIGH ENOUGH, perhaps EA will get THE MESSAGE to ship with even less DRM in the future." There you go. Much better.

Limited install?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Long time pirate here, posting as an AC for obvious reasons. I've bought some stuff over the years but for the most part my software, and for damn sure nearly every game, has been warez. As time went by I did start to notice that not only was it cheaper, duh, to pirate stuff but my warez tended to work better.

This is going back a long time when I would watch my Apple II disk drive slave over when trying to load some DRM hacked up game vs the pirated copy of it. To when I had to dig though my Simcity manual to find some activation code vs just playing the game with a warez version. To today with things trying to 'phone home' and this latest nonsense of limited installs?! Wow.

I've been out of 'the scene' for a while, WoW got it's claws into me, but recently have kicked that habit and was looking for something to play. After having paid for WoW for so long, and now not having to, I even thought about buying Mass Effect as it looked pretty damn good. I then noticed the DRM that went along with the PC version of ME...

Needless to say that given the option of paying for a game that was going to in effect rootkit my computer or dusting off some of my old warez skills I went with the latter.

no DRM increases sales, not decreases piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

There will always be pirates. It's the customers you're supposed to care about.

EA you are doing it wrong

Killing the second-hand market

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero resale value is exactly the point of this. EA knows they can't prevent piracy. This is not about turning pirates into paying customers. This is about turning second-hand buyers into new copy buyers.

Even 10 activations changes nothing.

[guidryp]

The whole point is you need to contact DRM servers.

There is no guarantee they will be up on the day you want to install. It is as simple as that. I will never BUY a game that requires this.

howabout this as a compromise?

[Cookie3]

Why should EA install Securom AND limit the number of installs? If EA doesn't trust Securom to do its job, then why are they using it at all?

Here's my proposed "compromise": Permit the end user to select whether he/she wants Securom on their computer.

1. If I refuse to install Securom, give me limited #s of installs based on hardware profile. Use the online authentication for installation authorization. If the system for the 'new' install closely (>90%?) matches the most recent previous submitted hardware profile, give me a free re-install.

If the install doesn't match the hardware profile, allow me to cancel it without using up the installation credit. Allow me to see what the hardware profile is, and how much of it matches, so that I can see why I'm not getting a "free" re-install. If needed, allow me to buy (at a reduced price) more installation credits.

And, most importantly, **TRUST ME** when i'm trying to be an honest consumer.

2. If I accept Securom on my computer, give me unlimited installs regardless of hardware configuration changes. Period.

Re:howabout this as a compromise?

[freedom_india]

And that is why ditched Crysis and got a refund for my DVD. I had to fresh install XP, but it was worth it.
Companies will not want to ditch DRM. If they do, they open themselves to a lawsuit by shareholders. If they don't people would not buy their games. What shd they do?
 

Re:howabout this as a compromise?

[Tekzel]

You lost me at "Why should EA...". I refuse to allow EA to have even a tiny bit of control over how I use the product I bought from them. If they can find a way to prevent me from giving a copy of their game to someone without IN ANY WAY intruding upon my use of the game, completely transparently, then I will be fine with that. Anything else is completely and utterly unacceptable.

I exercise my right to damage them by refusing to buy anything they touch. I understand that it is a laughable concept, as if they care one iota that they lose my measly one sale. Unless the majority of people out there refuse to take this crap, they will keep heaping it on. Since most people out there are clueless and will just bend over and take it, this is the way its gonna go.

Open letter to EA

[dweller_below]

Dear EA,

I hope you get this. I was unable to find an email address on your web site.

I have been waiting for Spore for years. However, now I will not buy it. It still appeals to me. I've got the money all ready and waiting, however I will not deal with the restrictive DRM. Not on Spore. Not on Red Alert 3. I have better uses for my time and money.

Goodbye,

Miles Johnson

Will Be Returning It To EA

[Anonymous Coward]

I purchased it from the EA website, unaware that there was an install restriction on it.

I will be returning the unopened box and won't bother playing Spore.

Spore, vt. 1. To cheat customers

[Petrushka]

I notice that the tags on Amazon feature a new addition to the English language -- the new verb "to spore", as in "prepare to be spored". There it appears to mean "to have your reputation shredded by customers infuriated at your shitty treatment of them". Personally I feel it also needs to have a transitive sense, viz. "to cheat your customers by treating them as pieces of shit who don't deserve to get anything for their money".

Either way, I'm in favour of keeping this new verb.

Re:Spore, vt. 1. To cheat customers

[CannedTurkey]

I love it. Somebody submit it to webster's.

Re:Spore, vt. 1. To cheat customers

[Anonymous Coward]

add it to urbandictionary?

C&C3: Kane's Wrath v1.01 caused hell for many.

[antdude]

... because of the updated SecureROM! See this old EA Forum thred for the details. EA still won't fix it even with the fixed file. I had to use a noDVD patch. No RA3 for me since beta sucked for me (not fun and cool).

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[Sapwatso]

If that is indeed their plan, the right way to do it would be to have already created the patch, and placed it in escrow with a neutral third party who has been paid in advance to keep the patch secure until such time as they go out of business or for any other reason no longer provide authentication. This third party would then be required to release the patch.

This sort of thing is done all the time by closed-source software vendors when their (big) customers demand access to the source in case they go belly-up, this sort of patch would not be much different.

If the patch does not already exist, in escrow, they are not serious about releasing it.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

[Anonymous Coward]

EA's website Terms of Sale do not allow returns in the US:

There are no refunds for products or servicees purchased on our Websites.

. The EU countries get a 14-day grace period.

However, they do allow exceptions for "fraudulent misrepresentation".

I would think that failing to fully inform the purchaser of the DRM limiting the number of times that the game can be re-installed (even if they will extend that on a case-by-case basis) is a misrepresentation since knowing that the DRM existed in that manner would have changed my decision to purchase the game.

Has anybody taken this approach with them before (or with the credit card company) and been successful?

Re:Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get a refund if

The product will not work on your computer because you do not meet the requirements.

I doubt it will run on a Linux computer using WINE or Cedega, so that should qualify you for a refund, assuming you don't own any version of MS Windows that 'qualifies".
The newest version of MS Windows that I have a license for is win98 and Spore needs XP or Vista.

Complete B.S.

[JM78]

Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future.

Bull crap. Piracy is not the problem and DRM certainly is not the solution. I will not purchase any game forcing a DRM, spyware or limited installation (WTF - this is just stupid. F**K you EA) scheme; period. I really wanted Spore too... there is no way whatsoever I will be purchasing it now as long as it's infected with EA greed. That goes for C&C too.

EA: destroyer of great games.

IMHO of course.

Hypothetically.

[PhotoGuy]

Hypthotically speaking, from what I've heard about the game, even my youngest (6) would enjoy the game (and would even progress this past weekend to the start tribes level herself). My second youngest would also love the game, and make it even further than that, loving the game. My 15 year old would also enjoy many hours in the game. Myself and my girlfriend would also have truly enjoyed the game, and make it to the tribes level, although not as far as my kids, and are looking forward to playing it further. All ages would seem to enjoy the game, and find value in it. Hypothetically.

If it were sale for $30, and no silly DRM, we would have bought a copy, but we didn't. The online game play looks very interesting, but with the DRM we won't bother to find that out, sadly. The torrented version (I hear) plays fine for single player, with no authentication hassles.

I bought Half-Life 2 a few years back, when I was living in a small cottage. Years later, no chance in hell of finding the box, my son asked me to play the game. After failing to find the original discs, I started a torrent going (I mean at least I could, hypothetically), but remembered that along with the lost boxed copy of Half-Life was an associated Steam account. I guessed at my probable username/password, and got in successfully. I realized I could now not just download patches (which used to take forever on my satellite internet in the boonies :), but I could also install the whole game from scratch. On multiple computers in the house. (With four kids, mobility between the PC's is very helpful). I ended up installing it on four different computers. We never used (and presumably couldn't) use more than one copy at once. That's fine. We weren't looking to abuse our purchase. We weren't looking to run more than one copy at once. We just wanted to play our one copy, when and where we wanted, and Steam allowed just that, and with very fast downloads. We had many, many hours of enjoyment going through the levels together, taking turns. If they had chosen EA/Spore-like DRM, this would have never happened. That has a *huge* amount of value to me.

Plus, there was a fair bit of additional content (forgotten highway, Counterstrike, etc...) that weren't in my original box. And some pretty reasonably prices for some additional promotional games they had running.

To even lump Steam into the pile of steaming DRM out there seems insane to me, when I see someone criticize it. It lets me download and play the game I bought, anywhere, anytime, even though it's a big honkin' game.

I wish EA would wake up and smell the roses. Steam has proven that license management doesn't have to be offensive to users, but they still persist. Such a waste, especially for such a cool game. Sure, check my account's validity and in-use status when I run it (no two-copies-at-once for a single account) but let me download and run it from anywhere. I'm happy, you're happy. It's not freakin' rocket science in this day and age...

Re:Hypothetically.

[Anonymous Coward]

To even lump Steam into the pile of steaming DRM out there seems insane to me, when I see someone criticize it. It lets me download and play the game I bought, anywhere, anytime, even though it's a big honkin' game.

Anywhere, Anytime?

You mean, you're sure those servers will be around for RetroValveCon 2018? Even after Valve is bought by EA in, say, 2012 and support for its legacy properties ends in, say, 2015?

I admire your optimism, but I pity your naivete.

Re:Hypothetically.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible to play on two copies at once, as long as it's not an online game. If you try to play something like Counterstrike it will just kick the other account off and ask you to log in again.

Re:Hypothetically.

[Tekzel]

Steam is just more of the same. You are STILL buying a game that you can only play if Valve decides to let you. If they decide for some reason that they don't like you ("terms of use" violation, or whatever) or if they go out of business (don't laugh, it happens all the time in todays rapid fire economy) then you will be done. I refuse to buy a game that I can't install and play 10 years from now if I have the system to support it and decide to. Once in a while I fire up Quake 2 for old times sake. Granted, ID is still around, but was no guarantee that would be the case.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[basscomm]

short of the difficulty of offline play, I don't know too many people with genuine complaints about Steam.

My biggest beef with Steam is that Valve has a kill switch that they could use if they want to. That's far more control over my purchase than they should have.

insanity.

[Anonymous Coward]

When are companies going to realize people do not want to license or rent software?

  All you old-school gamers out there stop for a minute and think -- if these schemes were in effect back in the 90's, your game collection would effectively be garbage. How many times have you gone back to your "X-com UFO Defense", or an old "Ultima" title to relive those glory days? With these schemes in play, you would find their product activation lines not in service, as the companies no longer exist (EA disbanded Origin some years back). At which point, ironically, the only way to play the game you bought would be to pirate it. I'll just cut out the middle-man and pirate it in the first place thank-you.

I've already paid for games I can't play...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already been screwed over by bugs/DRM from EA as a paying customer. Because of not being able to play games I actually paid for, I have already vowed the pirate all EA games I deem worth a damn as a way to get my money back. This way, I might get a game I paid for.

Just smoke and mirrors?

[Anonymous Coward]

My thought - The protests didn't make EA "ease" restrictions on Red Alert 3.

Perhaps EA had always planned on having 5 authorization tokens with RA3, as they see Spore as a higher-profile title (and therefore have tighter restrictions). They just figure we'll see it as "hey, 5 is greater than 3... OMG OUR VOICES WERE HEARD!", and that we'll all suddenly quiet down.

At least that's what I think. I'm probably wrong. Either way, it still not good enough. Boycott this game like you boycotted Spore (1-star on Amazon and whatnot). Screw 'em.

ease?

[crossmr]

All they're doing is increasing the install limit from 3 to 5. I would hardly be so generous as to calling that 'ease'.

All these changes are just fine, people...

[rastoboy29]

...if they only charged, I dunno, three bucks for the game.  Because that's what it'd be worth to me to try a game to even see if I'll install it more than once.  Which is usually never, as most games suck.

Re:Don't worry about DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

It was rather on topic in the way that DRM or no-DRM a game which is shit won't sell well in any case.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[davolfman]

It's a license. You never owned it in the first place. At least that's what their lawyers tell them.

Amazon Red Alert 3 Link

[dw604]

Let the bad reviews start. Well, here's the discussion forum until then:

http://www.amazon.com/Command-Conquer-Red-Alert-3-Pc/forum/Fx1HJE2RTRO2AI9/-/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_sap?_encoding=UTF8&cdAnchor=B0016BVY7U&asin=B0016BVY7U

I wish EA would smarten up - I really would have liked to play^H^H^H^Hpay for this game.

BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

No deal. I will never buy a game where I might have the ability to play it taken away from me depending on how many times I installed it. I have games from the early 90's that I might still install and play. I've gone through at least 8 computers since then! In 15 years should I be locked out of playing Spore or Red Alert 3 just because I installed them more than once or on new computers I've bought since then? HELL NO! According to all those reviews about Spore on Amazon, the pirate version doesn't have that problem. Sounds like it's a much better value for my money to me! EA will never reduce the DRM if the game is pirated less. The DRM is not to prevent piracy, it's to milk legitimate customers of their hard earned cash by forcing them to buy the same game over and over again. This will probably be people who don't know any better, have little or no anti-virus software on their computer, and are prone to run things like "paris hilton brittney spears vagina party sex fuck teens whores pool party.jpg.gif.exe".

What's Crazy...

[mattsday]

What's crazy is that I WANT to pay for games. I WANT to legally own them and I WANT the people that produced them and funded their business to have my money (provided it's a reasonable cost).

What I DO NOT WANT is to fart around trying to get it working in a few years time after I've bought a new Mac. I want to be able to potentially play it in 5, maybe 10 years time.

I've recently started playing the Monkey Island Series again via ScummVM. I paid for these games way back when and still had them. It was a joy to load them up and just play them. The same went for Broken Sword. Can I do this in the future with all the DRM and restrictions placed in to these titles? When that time comes, I'll have to use a 'pirated' copy I expect because the original ones are too crippled to permit this kind of re-use.

Even today the first thing I do is get a No-CD crack for ligitimately owned games, so I can play them on the move without having to carry all the CD's with me and risk damaging/losing them. Really easy for the studios to overcome, but instead I have to look for these pirates.

The worry is then that I depend on the studios to create these games, but also the pirates to make them playable for me in the future and also bearable today! In other words, I feel almost like I have to pay the studios to ensure my moral obligation to pay for what I use is settled, but then download the pirate copy anyway to get a decent experience! Given that the former are being so ridiculous, guess which one I'm less likely to continue doing?

Sigh.

And when you calll...

[Ogman]

And when you do have to call, they should stop acting like their customers are criminals. I got a bad disk from EA a while back; and when I called to report it, they accused me of damaging the disk myself. I had to send a picture of the disk to show that there was no physical damage before they reluctantly sent me a new one. Since then, I avoid EA games.

Damn, won't be buying RA3 then

[Snaller]

Oh well.

Downloading Cracked Spore Now

[Anonymous Coward]

I never had any interest in Spore. I never planned to buy it. I'll probably never play the game. I'm downloading the pirated version now because I hate EA. Screw you and your DRM EA.

Because 5 is better than 3 right? Duh!!

[Tinz]

This game will self destruct after 5 activations. How dumb do you need to be to become an EA Executive? I wanna sign up and get a kewl car, nice office, fat salary and increase activations to 6!! There .... I'm a genius!

no

[Anonymous Coward]

no, and fuck you.

i'll just buy games that have no DRM. it's too bad, too. i was really looking forward to spore.

Uninstalling while online re-credits the serial

[Anonymous Coward]

I think some people are missing the fact that if you uninstall the game while online, your serial gets the install credit back on the auth server.

DRM still sucks, but given this fact- it is pretty much exactly like iTunes which is probably the most consumer friendly implementation. It has DRM- but it is much better than it has been before- and there's something to be said about that. Maybe this is one step closer to ditching the thing altogether...

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[arbiter1]

chances are if valve is gonna go under some other maker probley will by the company out and most likely they will keep it goin and maybe merge their stuff with it.

don't kid yourself

[embeejay]

"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."

The use of DRM and the rate of piracy has nothing to do with eachother. Pirates will find a way to crack any DRM, as history shows only too well.
In effect, all DRM does is annoy people who choose to pay for the product instead of downloading it from one of the gazillion torrent websites who has a non-drm version ready for download.

Start a 'Pay the team directly' piracy program.

[Shark]

Send Will and the team 50 bucks and tell them you're sorry you had to pirate the game because you can't support DRM but you want him to keep making games.

Heck, if half the people who read this did it, I'm sure he could afford a new Corvette ;)

Pay 'Em with DRM'd Money

[bratwiz]

Pay 'em with DRM'd money. Put the bucks in a plastic bag with a EULA on the outside they can read that tells them under what conditions they can use the money you're sending in exchange for their DRM'd game.

When they receive enough DRM'd bucks they'll get the message.

In fact, I propose paying for all DRM'd media that way.

Fuck 'em. If they can do it to us, we can do it right back.

Re:Pay 'Em with DRM'd Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, it'd be nice if we could do that. Maybe there's a niche market for someone to make dye-bomb bags that will mark the notes when opened so they appear to have been stolen from a bank. Optionally, put the EULA on the inside so they can't read it until they've opened the bag. That would be a level 2 protest.
Or maybe just put one of those clothing tags through the cash, thugh I guess they could just tear it out without breaking the dye canister. Torn money works better than torn designer clothes.

NO DRM

[icsx]

How hard is it just to let go of DRM isntead of trying to keep it aboard? We clearly know it hasnt stopped a single copy of any game spreading over internet. Only thing it makes hard is for average Joe to play the actual game.

You suck at pirating

[SmallFurryCreature]

Pain in the ass? I simply visit thepiratebay.org and type in the title of the product I want. No nasty going around the shops trying to find the title with annoying music blaring in the background.

Quick? The shops are 15 minutes away, that is 40 minutes if I hurry. I download a DVD easily in that time with bittorrent. All with me doing nothing but clicking the link.

Risky? No securerom side installs, the scene has better quality control then any company and if there is a problem patches are released in a matter of hours not years.

I get the uncensored proper release, not some localized version that can't take the official patches

No, sorry, spore is the prime example. I downloaded it in about 15 minutes, had it installed FAR quicker because it was installed from HD not DVD. No Securom was installed along side. Didn't help that the game itself can be played in a couple of hours. My god did that game suck, sure the design was fun, but so hopelessly limited that I got the distinct impression this game came directly from the 1990's with just a slightly improved graphics engine.

Oh, and if you mean to warn me about virusses, yes, some try to get people to install trojans but frankly, anyone with an IQ above room temperature can spot this easily. Hint, spore does not fit in a 300k exe.

Modern games have very succesfully managed to suck so badly, be so little fun long term, create so much hassle for the legit buyer and give no 'goodies' in the box like say a printed manual, to make piracy the clearly superior method.

For me as well it ain't the money. I buy new MP3 players because the battery ran down and a new phone because the old one is just to last week. But the PC game industry, mostly, has very succesfully managed to make piracy just the superior shopping experience.

I don't do Securom or anything like it EVER! I have all my old CD's (and used to have a huge box of floppies) all bought full price. It is a meter high stack. Do the math on how much money that has been since games started coming on CD's.

My recent game purchase was Age of Conan + 1 gamecard and Lotro CE (lifetime subscription) both at launch.

Companies can still get my money, but only if they offer me a reason and Securom is NOT that reason.

I pirated Spore, and will pirate RA3 too.

[packman]

"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."

This is one of the things that exactly causes piracy. I will not 'rent' a game. A pirated copy is 10x easier to install, no activation bullshit... Yes I would be perfectly willing to buy the game - I have original copies of almost every 'westwood' and C&C game. I was tempted to buy Spore when I saw it in the shop, but the DRM shit stopped me from taking it. I think we should make the message more clear.

Why don't they have a good look at DRM licensing schemes that actually worked and still work (mainly iTunes and Steam). They exist and are virtually no hassle to the customer, I can perfectly live with them because I have control over them. I can install my Steam games on as much PC's as I want. iTunes does have DRM, but is pretty easy to manage - and much of it's content is moving to the "iTunes+" without DRM anyway. The DRM which is used in iTunes can be perfectly managed by me - the user.

When they would finally realise that ppl are willing to pay for something as long as it's easier than pirating (buying on iTunes has to be THE perfect example), gives significant benefits (log in on Steam, install&play anywhere with your account) and/or wouldn't have such serious drawbacks - they wouldn't have all this trouble.

But well, EA's top still is a bunch of idiots that doesn't understand the concept of 'customers'... The fact that you don't get one of your 'install rights' back when uninstalling is I think the biggest problem. While still not perfect, I would probably have bought Spore on-the-spot if it simply did this. But it doesn't - so I'll gladly be a pirate.

Re:I pirated Spore, and will pirate RA3 too.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I will not 'rent' a game. A pirated copy is 10x easier to install, no activation bullshit..."

Agreed completely. I have the "Command & Conquer: The First Decade" box set that I've gone out & paid for, but I'm using the cracked no-CD version. The box with the DVD is gathering dust on a shelf somewhere.

Why?

Reason 1: no need to waste time looking for the disc & swapping it out.

Reason 2: less delay & overhead - the 10,000-RPM hard drive can serve up the same content heck of a lot faster, leading to a better experience overall.

Reason 3: disc is in the box, no possibility of getting scratches - perfect resale value.

So technically I'm a pirate-user (although I have a legit copy). Because I want to play it MY way.

And I will NOT, EVER, buy a game that restricts my freedom of enjoying it. No matter how cool or advanced it is.

I've spent 100's of dollars over the years on games, but it was always with the peace of mind knowing that I could install/reinstall/uninstall/etc, and moreover use the content without degrading the media, so I could resell the game when I was done. (case in point: Diablo II LOD + no-CD, install & repack all materials in original box, play the game for a year, resell "like-new" box & perfect unscratched discs.)

It's not the matter of getting my $ 50 back, it's the matter of KNOWING THAT I CAN.

This is no longer the case. I will NOT buy another EA game, not until they pull their heads out of their asses and realize that all they're doing is punishing paying customers.

"so I'll gladly be a pirate."

Me too, man, me too.

Lets still the cries of the users.

[mongrol]

It's clear to me that this new DRM scheme has nothing to do with users and everything to do with the used game market. Spore would be pirated whether it had DRM or not, EA aren't stupid. Those are lost sales either way. However, the DRM scheme basically removes Spore from the used game shelves so any potential players that come along later on when it hits the bargain bins, will have to buy the legit EA copy and not the five dollar cheaper used. That's money out of Gamespots pocket and into EA's.

Online activation will be a win for EA and developers, they just have to get the balance right, and/or for the users to get used to it. Meanwhile, EB and Gamespot will be hurting.

Re:Lets still the cries of the users.

[Digital_Quartz]

Call me cynical, but I have a hard time seeing how something that makes your former customers hate you, organize online rallies against you, and stops people from buying your product is a "big win".

Yawn.

[jridley]

Call me when they release with ZERO DRM. Until then I'm not interested.

I'll only even buy games with copy protection (CD insertion type) AFTER I find that there's a NoCD patch available. I've done this from the beginning; back in the '80s I only bought floppy-based games once I'd found a working pirated copy which ran OK without copy protection; THEN I'd go out and buy a copy (and never install it) and I'd write a note saying what I'd done and sent it in with the registration card.

I WILL give them money for their games, but NOT if there's DRM. I am not a huge game purchaser, but I've skipped both of the games I thought I'd be guying this year due to them having DRM. So far this year no game maker has gotten a dime from me, when if they'd not had DRM, they could have had $100 or so of my money.

Re:Why fix Red Alert if people are upset about Spo

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that supposed to be a funny post? If so it failed, and if not then you completely missed the point. Either way, your comment was useless.

DRM is a waste of their time/money

[infalliable]

It seems like such poor business practices to include these draconian anti-piracy schemes. They are broke within hours and at most a few days (some even before initial release). As a result, any DRM at all is as good as a super-duper DRM in that they're all useless. All they do is get the most loyal customers, who will buy the game, pissed off. So EA is getting a large amount of negative press and requiring extra people to handle additional installations and other customer service issues. I was thinking of getting Spore, until I heard you only get 3 installs. No way I'm going to mess with that.

They don't seem to understand that a large portion of those who pirate the game, will never buy it anyway. If a person doesn't feel like the game is worth $50 to them they won't buy it. It is not a lost sale. They may download it for free and try it, but no DRM will change that into a sale.

Music industry has been really bad about it. Piss off all your customers, then complain they don't buy your stuff.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[MistrBlank]

Honestly, as much as I hate the idea of steam, at least I don't have to call them at 3 in the morning to install my f'ing game. They also don't care how many systems I install their games to, just as long as I'm only logged into Steam on one.

Damn. Yet another game not to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually looking forward to Red alert 3. I loved the original and 2 wasn't bad. But forget it now. Any game that is going to restrict how many times I can install it is not worth the money. Hell I think I've reintalled windows more times than I can install the game.

I dream of the day when all these companies begin to realize the pirates will always break the DRM and by using it they do more to aggravate their honest customers than they do to deter the pirates. Based on how fast they've learned everything else I am guessing we've got another 5 years minimum, most likely 10.

valve has the right idea for drm

[Anonymous Coward]

steam is awesome, just install the client and download any game in my steam account to that computer to play.

beats the hell out of having to keep a CD in the drive.

Avoid DRM - do what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your Spore RELOADED release from piratebay or mininova.

FLAWLESS.

Re:Avoid DRM - do what I do

[pandrijeczko]

So, in other words, we honest gamers should continue to buy games so that the games companies make some profits in order to release more games that you can download free of charge.

Hmmm...

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[Just Some Guy]

I would gladly take CD checks over limited installs any day.

That's not so convenient for owners of new computers without optical drives.

Never dream about something that can't be.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."

Well if I would by a music CD or DVD movies, I want to listen to it more than 5 times.

Limiting the numbers of installations, is enough to raised piracy of that game because people feel justify to do it.

They paid 50$+ to get a game, they own it in their mind. No matter what, that kind of system, encourage people that had buy the game to cut off the protection. In doing so, EA give more incentives to cracker to do their work. Because a lot more people want to crack that game, because they had paid to own it and feel justify to used it.

Actually, They should listen to Stardock. They get a nice model, that is not crackable and do wonders without giving sh*t to their customers.

Oh HO EA! Thanks to make the world better by being rude and harsh morons with your customers, in that way, crackers get more knowledge, customers more knowledge, bringing more lights in people brains. Yes!!! More controversial ideas bring more freedom of the mind, bring less sheep in the court yard.

Jourdespoir
p.s. and i don't care to get a slashdot account.

Fingers in their ears

[Serician]

You know the best part of this whole Spore issue? EA doesn't even want to hear from us about it. They simply don't care.

Try finding a way to tell EA that you're not interested in buying their games with the current DRM scheme. Or try telling them you like it! It doesn't matter, they don't want to hear from you.

Every contact us button I have found requires you to have an account and login. There is no forum on the official Spore website. The EA website has forums, but none for Spore. Do a search for "Spore Forum" on the EA site and you find NOTHING.

It's pretty clear they want to hear from us. That's fine. I no longer want to hear from them. I'm self-imposing a 2 year ban on ALL EA games. I have purchased many over the years, and I had planned on purchasing several this year. Now, I will neither purchase new ones or play old ones.

I can understand EA wanting to put DRM on their games, I really do. I don't understand them not wanting feedback from long-time customers.

Re:Fingers in their ears

[CannedTurkey]

If you want to get their attention, download the game off bit-torrent. Don't play it, just keep downloading it over, and over, and over. Start a grass-roots movement convincing everyone to do the same. Then, when the number of downloads exceeds the population of the earth, and the only possible explanation is that every man, woman, child, and household pet has a copy of their silly game, and that they've obviously lost 9 or 10 billion sales due to piracy, maybe something will click and they'll realize that this whole DRM thing was a huge waste of time and money.

Got spore for 40 bucks

[unity100]

got back to house, installed it, spotted the securerom sh@t that has infested my computer aftewards.

went to web, searched securerom fixes, removed securerom filth, acquired a 'fix' for spore, and now im playing smooth.

oddly though, i dont see the point in practicing that much paranoia for a game like spore. i mean, the game is cute and all, and fun the first time, but the gameplay grows stale after some point, and i dont see myself playing it for more than 2-3 times. apparently they knew of this, and limited the installs to 3.

well. them morons. instead of investing in securerom sh@t, they should have spent that funds in developing the game further. 10 years, and this is what we get ?

Cancelled my preorder already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for letting me know RA3 limited the number of installs as well as Spore.

I back up and reinstall my computer every 3 or 4 months for various reasons, and limiting me to 10 installs isn't enough on any game. Once I pay the money, its my damn game and I should be able to install it as many times as I damn well feel like on my own computer.

If I'd have had any idea that RA3 did the same crap as Spore did, I wouldn't have ordered it either. I just cancelled my RA3 preorder.

Hey EA?!!! You know how you guys keep saying the PC Gaming industry is dying? Guess what. You're the ones killing it.

And I got a news flash for you. I'm not switching to the latest and greatest console and just spending my money there, I stopped buying your crap altogether.

No one to blame but yourselves.

spore has drm?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize there was drm in spore.
I just downloaded, installed, then played it.

Maybe you only get the crippled drm version if you pay for the game...

If I decide to buy it, I'll still download it.

[Big Boss]

Just because the DRM is too irritating. I haven't been into RTS since about when Starcraft was big, so I'm a bit out of the loop and being interested in this game is about 50/50. However, when dealing with games, I don't like all the stupid DRM crap. Steam was about the most I can tolerate, and if it wasn't for HL2 I wouldn't have bothered.

We all know that the pirate groups will have a 0-day cracked release out. It's just how it works. So if I decide I want to play this game, I'll still buy it, but I'll download and play the "pirated" version because the DRM pisses me off. The box might look nice on my shelf for a while though. :)

Crapware is a problem

[nam207]

I personally have no problem with 3, 5 times limitation (although I think it's very annoying), but I have problem with the crapware that DRM is gonna put on my computer, period. If Spore, or any other games in that matter, is great and have many online-content that only available to customer via legit key (like WoW, you can't generate the key to play WoW servers), I'd buy the game just to enjoy the online content. Right now, Spore has online content it is not enough to overcome the crapware. Nothing is anyway, so I won't buy it and just enjoy the offline content with the Reloaded copy.

Spore & SecuROM: Just the Fact Man

[nevermore94]

I have been reading lots of things about Spore and SecuROM and yes, I agree DRM is evil and only 3 activations sucks, but I want more technical information. What does the version of SecuROM in Spore REALLY do to your computer? Does it leave a continuously running process or service? How much CPU does it use? How much RAM does it use? Does it affect other DVD burning or copying in any way? What other definite technical information about the SecuROM in Spore can the /. community provide other than just anti-DRM messages and hear-say?

sigh . . .

[Satanboy]

well, another drm loaded nightmare from EA, looks like I'll have to wait for Starcraft 2 to get my RTS fix on . . . .

Thanks, but No Thanks

[cparker15]

The day EA ships its games DRM-free is the day I purchase one to support them. Until then, if I have an urge to play an EA game (which hasn't happened since Road Rash was still top-of-the-line), EA won't get a penny from me.

Aris

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally speaking hard-core gamers would usually get the latest hardware they can. That usually means changing a PC or PC parts every 1-2 years. Not counting the number of PCs, Laptops you have already, a license restriction is really not a viable option.

The last game I bought from EA was CNC3 and it was a nightmare to install. At that time I had a BFG 7900GT vid card, which came with a virtual drive software. Bad idea since CNC3 doesnâ(TM)t allow you to install if you have a virtual drive. Even when I already uninstalled the virtual drive the game still wouldnâ(TM)t play. The only way I was able to play the game is to download a crack and used it to play the game. Now that just sucks big time to have to find a pirated copy just so I can play a game I paid for legally.

Bottom line EA is DRM software of any kind will kill your market. Believe me I know because Iâ(TM)m a big CNC fan but thereâ(TM)s no way Iâ(TM)m buying anything from EA again. Thatâ(TM)s already one less customer for you!

Online authent....

[Anonymous Coward]

My big beef with Spore is the online authentication. I see DRM! DRM! posted everywhere but I bought the game after CAREFULLY READING the system requirements on the box. They DO NOT list online access as a requirement, although in another section it notes that an online connection is required to play. Well, I bought it and tried to install it on my laptop so that I had something to play away from home. Lo and behold not only will it NOT FULLY INSTALL, but once I realized the problem and got internet connection, I STILL cannot install the game. I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling a couple times now but there are apparently some evil tendrils still floating around in the registry marking me as a demonic pirate since I didn't have a connection my very first try.
I emailed EA for a refund or help of some sort two days ago and haven't heard a peep back yet. I was able to install it to my desktop but frankly I've got better looking games to play there.

Faulty Logic. These games just became overpriced.

[guidryp]

I agree about the aim, but don't about it being a win.

This is based on the faulty assumption that every prevented used sale results in another new retail sale. This is the same faulty logic that claims multi-billion dollar losses from "piracy" because every download = a lost sale.

It is clear that this is not the case. Games are desired items, not needed items, and they can easily be done without. Price it too high and it won't sell, piss off your customer too much and they won't buy.

In this case I won't buy anything that I can't, in a nostalgic mood, re-install on my system and play in 5 or even 10 years from now. Anything less is a rental and an overpriced one at that. So the game is overpriced and not worth buying.

Furthermore. EA just destroyed resale value with this move. Resale value is also a part of perceived value. So again EA has reduced value of the product.

So by shortening the life of the product if I keep it and destroying the resale if I don't, EA has greatly reduced the value of the product, while keep the same pricing.

It is now overpriced to the point of being off the table as a purchase. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am joining the Anti-EA crusade and will warn everyone I know away from their games pointing out that it is essentially a $50 rental.

So this is where we have arrived?

[Tekzel]

From the post: "Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."

So, we are down to HOPING that the publishers will allow us to install the product we paid good money for as many times as we want on our own PC? EA can eat a flaming sack of dog shit, I will never purchase another single product that they are even remotely involved in.

Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz

[hurfy]

"I have never pirated a game without DRM when I could still buy it legally (sorry Microprose games from '85)"

huh, without DRM?

Don't feel bad...That key disk from Microprose in 1985 probably wouldn't authenticate anyways......... :/

Very few of my retail games work on my 386 because of said disks, but the pirated and shareware games do with very few exceptions. Still need to find some cracked versions of Microprose and others :(

Copy Paste

[tensop]

So i was typing my spore serial key in accidently, without realising that a notepad opened up. I typed the entire serial key into notepad... However i noticed that i could simply copy and paste the key directly into the spore installer..... It's almost like they're making it easier for pirates.. I heard NFO's contain serials

Pirate It!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was looking forward to Spore more than anything else since it was first announced.
I put aside money specifically for it.

I will pirate it. Intentionally. Specifically because of the Orwellian "copy protection".
Prevent copying media? Not a problem.
Limited reinstalls? Problem.
Phoning home? Problem!
Mandatory DRM drivers? PROBLEM!

Pirate all software that uses methods like these.
Buy those which are reasonable and responsible.

Congrats, EA. You just made me a pirate!

[Anonymous Coward]

I *was* going to buy Crysis: Warhead. But because of this, I'm going to pirate it with zeal--just to punish them for being so colossally stupid.

And I hope LOTS of people follow my example.

Low Piracy ?= Less DRM

[Kintar1900]

Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future.

Uhm...what? Wouldn't less piracy of Spore along with decent sales indicate to EA that they should do this type of bull more often? Personally, I hope they make plenty of money on Spore, and I also hope that everyone and his brother gets a cracked copy of it so that they see their sales numbers insanely high, and nothing approaching a match to that in activations. Maybe that would send a better message.