Slashdot Mirror
EA Patches Spore, Eases DRM
EA has released the first patch for Spore, the purpose of which is to fix a number of bugs and tweak some gameplay settings to be more entertaining. Some of the visual effects were upgraded as well. They've also officially responded to the complaints about Spore's DRM, stating their intention to increase the number of allowed installations to five and to set up a system to "de-authorize" systems in order to reclaim the installation credit. They plan to allow multiple screen names per account, which was an issue for many families trying to play the game. This comes not long after EA made similar changes to the DRM of upcoming RTS Red Alert 3, and after Spore's DRM protest spread to in-game creature designs. Reader SoopahMan notes that users in EA's Spore tech support forum are reporting a number of new issues caused by the patch.
They say "let us manage your rights, you can trust us." I say "let me manage my rights, you can trust me."
The difference is, I've never helped someone pirate a game I bought, and I don't buy games with DRM (aside from dumb shit like cd keys/anything that is replay vulnerable)
They screw over honest players time and time again.
Until the free (pirated) version is harder to make work than the expensive broken version, I'm not buying.
Or rather I'm buying from competitors and skipping Spore because it is, as noted below, a shallow, tedious clickfest.
I hate half baked games nerfed to appeal to the IQ of 60
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Assuming you have access to a fast, cheap (ideally unmetered) internet connection, Steam is actually pretty good. It strikes a decent balance between the restrictions and benefits, particularly on Valve's games. While it's more restrictive than no DRM, or the kind of copy protection measures in use several years ago, it's a good deal less restrictive than most modern DRM measures.
With Steam, I can install as many copies I want, on as many machines I want. I need an internet connection to activate the game, but not after that. I can only use the account on one computer if I'm in online mode, which is fair enough. In offline mode, I can run as many copies as I want, and even play multiplayer between them. This is all stuff that I've been able to do for years with other games, and I expect to be able to do now. I also gain access to my games from any location, I don't need CD keys, I don't need to lug CDs around with me, and I can simply buy a game online and download it immediately.
In effect, the copy protection is completely transparent. I can use the game I bought almost as freely as I could use a game with no copy protection. Not quite, but almost.
Competing DRM schemes do not offer any of this, and they get in my way.
The main restriction with Steam is that it's not possible to re-sell the games. While I understand why they do this, I don't agree with it at all. This restriction is shared with all other current DRM measures.
"You are publicly admitting to larceny and I hope you're nailed to the wall for it."
Copyright infringement, at best. I am getting tired of having to point this out to those who ether refuse to acknowledge the difference, or are simply too brainwashed to tell.
Great Intellect...
And it was promptly usurped by the HBC and WadManager (and Wii ports of FCE Ultra, Snes9x, etc). I'm not sure about the 360, but there's a similar case with the PS3 as well. Just because downloads are being pushed doesn't mean they're selling. Obviously they are, but the point is one doesn't necessarily equal the other. Just a thought.
Your ad here.
There's one flaw with your argument.
They don't sell used PC games, only used console games.