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.

Comments

How gracious of them

[Verteiron]

I wonder if they actually believe this is going to change how people feel about the DRM, or if they just don't care and are trying to curb the Amazon comments?

Re:How gracious of them

[calmofthestorm]

Easy. You make enough people happy that the protesters can be comfortably ignored. Deactivation isn't enough for me, but it's no longer renting the same way it was. Add in a promise to completely disable all drm if/when they shut down the servers and I think you could get most people onboard.

Not me, but enough of the mainline gamers for it to matter.

Re:How gracious of them

[hairyfeet]

Well,the limited activation BS equals no sale for me. When I buy something I want to actually BUY,and the limited activations make this an expensive rental. I still have games from the old DOS/Win9X era that I like to break out and play by companies long gone which I couldn't do if they had this crap. Which,of course along with killing the right of first sale is the point. To turn the whole business into an expensive rental so when a company gets bought out the buyer can simply kill the activation servers and get paid all over again for new keys.

And any promise to get rid of the DRM when they shut down the servers is just a lie. Today most of the companies get bought out,which means their promise is worthless unless it is written in the EULA,which I'm willing to bet it's not. So sorry EA,but this is one customer that won't be buying your product until the limited activations are gone,period. This is a game,NOT iTunes.

I would STRONGLY suggest everyone spread the word and keep as many folks from buying the game as possible,because in case you haven't heard other games are going to end up with this crap. The next one to have the limited Activation stench is Crysis:Warhead. So please spread the word and keep EA and the other major players from stealing your right of first sale!!! And as always this is one old gamers 02c,YMMV

Are they really that naive?

[MindlessAutomata]

We're willing to evolve our policy to accommodate our consumers. But we're hoping that everyone understands that DRM policy is essential to the economic structure we use to fund our games and as well as to the rights of people who create them. Without the ability to protect our work from piracy, developers across the entire game industry will eventually stop investing time and money in PC titles.

Not only does this sound hilarious ("essential to the economic structure...") but not once in the history of software piracy, as far as I know, has DRM -ever- stopped piracy.

I have to wonder if the CEOs and the decision-makers are out-of-touch and naive. Who do they think is actually going to believe this shit? Do they? Frankly, I don't think any actual malice is going on, just complete stupidity by non-techies easily wowed by the DRM snake oil.

People like to go "ugh EA is fucking us!" and also complain "But the DRM actually hurts sales!" (probably true) and yet they STILL bang their head against the wall. If DRM worked, then the EA fucking us thing might be true. But given how worthless DRM is and how hackers break it the day it comes out (and often, before, as was partly the case with Spore) I frankly have to wonder if someone is simply just out of touch.

Actually, I have a better idea. DRM is being used not because it works, but because someone (or some group, the people responsible for fighting piracy or such?) in the corporate structure ants the people up top to think they're doing their (impossible, and they likely know it) job so they don't get sacked. DRM stinks of a product of bureaucracy.

Re:Are they really that naive?

[calmofthestorm]

To stop piracy they crack down on BT through various means. The purpose of this DRM is to destroy resale value and make people need expensive reactivations/buy new copies if anything goes wrong/so they can shut down the servers and switch to a new model any time they want.

This is similar to how child porn is used to justify measures that do nothing to prevent the people who make it, but seem to have an awful lot to do with curtailing protest against the gvmt.

Re:Are they really that naive?

[Paradigm_Complex]

Not only does this sound hilarious ("essential to the economic structure...") but not once in the history of software piracy, as far as I know, has DRM -ever- stopped piracy.

(1) The goal isn't to completely stop all piracy of the product, just curb it. Some people would prefer to just buy the game rather than waiting for a crack or having to hassle with it. While it varries, this is the case sufficiently for companies to consider it worth the downsides. Of course this isn't the case when the DRM more trouble than just waiting a bit more for a clean crack, or if the crack is out before the game actually launches (as happened with Spore).
(2) BD+ is still pretty locked down.

Re:Are they really that naive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first paragraph sure nails this thing. That is precisely what DRM is about. Not pirating software but to make it harder to resell games. Games companies have already mentioned that places like Gamestop that sell used games hurt the developers.

Sony and Microsoft are combating it in a similar way with the PS3 and XBOX360. They are trying to push for more games being sold through PSN or XBox Live. Your reselling of games at that point is pretty much toast. What they don't seem to realize is that in the long run this hurts them too because by not being able to trade in the online purchased games they users are not able to afford purchasing as many new games.

Re:Are they really that naive?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Actually DRM is working.

I don't buy, or download the game.

So, even tho they are losing a sale, they aren't being hurt by me pirating.

Now, if I could just put the game on the hard drive of my non internet pc and play, I'd buy the game - but even I know that's just silly talk.

YAY DRM!

Re:Are they really that naive?

[Aereus]

I wonder what they have to say about the fact that the game was already cracked before the release date, and more than half a million people pirated it in the first week alone? How do they still justify that it prevents piracy?

In many cases the crack lets you get the game running faster than trying to mess around with driver and firmware upgrades to get the DRM functioning.

Too little, Too late.

[Anonymous Coward]

They could have acted sooner. alot sooner. now it's too late. they put me off, and I wont be swayed with this pathetic "fix"

To borrow a phrase...

[lowlymarine]

From Benjamin "Yahtzee" Croshaw of "Zero Punctuation" fame:

"They could not have missed the point further if they had fired in a completely different direction and the point was in another country altogether."

The point is, EA, I WILL NOT be treated like a criminal. 5 activations is more than 3, yes, but it's still less than infinity, the number I should have. The number every other game (BioShock and Mass Effect aside) gives me. And I will not buy a single-player game that you can turn off at any time for any or no reason. Period. So back off the insane DRM or you will never get another penny out of me ever again. And I doubt I'm alone in that sentiment.

Re:To borrow a phrase...

[lowlymarine]

Seeing as all of my Steam games are installed on all of my computers at once all the time, and have been reinstalled countless time without ever jumping through any special hoops to "refund activations," I'd say it's not much of a comparison. And while Steam is pretty restrictive DRM, it comes with upsides - I can install any game I own at any time on any computer without needing the disc. I can even play against other people on my account at LANs. Spore's DRM, however, doesn't offer any upsides. It's all restrictions, and only on the legit users. I'm pretty sure that despite the online activation and phone home nonsense, you even still need the cocking disc in the drive to play!

Re:To borrow a phrase...

[wirelessbuzzers]

I bought Spore. The DRM is irritating. But you don't need the cocking disc in the drive to play.

Re:To borrow a phrase...

[malkavian]

I'm on death row. The death is irritating, but at least they're not using the electric chair.

Somewhere along the line, you've missed the point; This DRM cripples your rights to resell a game (if it stinks, you can sell it on and recoup some of your losses, if it's not one you want to hold on to and play again and again, you can resell it). It cripples your ability to do anything with it that you'd normally expect to do with something you buy (you can lend a book to your mate; CD in the drive protection allows you to do this with a game, DRM doesn't).
There is a whole historic section of law that guarantees the purchasor's rights to do what they want with items they have bought. Software companies, and DRM in particular have been trying VERY hard these last few years to work their way around the law, so that technically, you do still have the right to sell on the game (you can put the install DVD on Ebay or whatever), but it will be useless to the person who purchases it, making your legal rights useless.
In other words, yes, these companies are effectively stealing from you (yes, exactly what they're saying pirates do to them).
They are deliberately killing the resale market, ensuring you have no ability to recoup any of the money you spent on the item (or donating it to charity in the way of charity bookshops etc.), in any way the law says you should be able to do with such an item (as it was fair to be able to do such a thing).
Yes, I know the first sale doctrine is confused because the software companies say that software is 'licensed'. The day they turn round and say that they'll replace all media once it's broken, and allow perpetual updates, and not tie it to any particular machine, and vastly reduce the cost, then I may think twice (actually, I use Steam, as it lets me do most of that).
As it stands, the companies are way too greedy and grasping, feeling quite at home screwing over their customers in the attempt to create larger sales. The sooner this ends, and a 'fair' market resumes (in the same way it happened with books and such) the better.

Who chose this title?

[pembo13]

I read that as "EA Patches Spore, Erases DRM"

Re:Installation limits

[QuantumG]

What ever happened to The First Sale Doctrine? You have a right to resell that game when you've finished playing it.

They're just trying to kill the second hand market.

Nope. Still going to pirate it

[91degrees]

That gives me infinite installations!

For god's sake! I could see a limit to the number of installs in a certain time making some sort of sense, but they've still removed any resale value.

Re:Installation limits

[91degrees]

A lot of people have come up with this theory. It certainly fits the facts, but is the second hand market really that big a problem?

Though this has already been hinted at...

[Etrai]

...no one has said it outright: DRM (and plain old copy protection if you care for the distinciton) only punishes those who care to buy the software. While this might not have been the intent this is the reality of the matter.
Stardock saw it, why can't EA (et al.)?

Overwhelming Gall

[Anonymous Coward]

From Frank Gibeau's open letter:

... we're hoping that everyone understands that DRM policy is essential to the economic structure we use to fund our games and as well as to the rights of people who create them. Without the ability to protect our work from piracy, developers across the entire game industry will eventually stop investing time and money in PC titles.

I can't believe the gall of EA to speak about the PC game industry like this. Here is the largest third-party game publisher in the world (unless Ubi Soft has them now), holding exclusivity contracts with multiple major sports franchises so their yearly Madden installments have no competition - who routinely releases malfunctioning games to the end consumer - who has been called out for overworking and underpaying its employees - who would rather charge you a buck to unlock a cheat code, or put ads in your game, than respect you as a customer - and this guy has the nerve to speak about what is good for the industry?

No, EA. Not buying it. Not buying your game, not buying your bullshit. Cry me a fuckin' river about software piracy -- no way I'm feeling sorry for you being hoisted by your own SecuROM petard.

Re:How gracious of you

[calmofthestorm]

Oh did my rental expire? My dad bought the games decades ago and gave them to me. Or was the right of first sale retroactively abolished too.

Fortunately for anti-DRM, it's not a great game.

[Gavin Scott]

Spore has two problems. First of all it has rather annoying DRM that probably actually has negative effects on about 1% of its players. But more importantly it's just not that great of a game. It's style of play and features will probably appeal strongly to about 10% of players.

So the game is not going to do anywhere near as well as they hoped. But the gameplay problems are probably at *least* 10x more the cause of this than the DRM issues.

But who are the developers going to blame? Which do you think is more likely:

A) Developers admit "The game wasn't that good really. Next time we'll try harder. Sorry about the $50M we spent over four years."

B) Developers blame DRM protests saying "This game is a failure only because of the DRM related issues. We are saddened by the fact that so many people were pushed into bootlegging the game which prevented its being a commercial success."

Anyone else think "B" is slightly more likely?

The net result is that everyone blames the DRM stuff so that they don't have to take any personal blame for the failure. And so the anti-DRM crowd gain a huge win that will dramatically reduce DRM use in the future, even though DRM probably had little to do with the relative success of the game.

G.

P.S. After wandering through a computer store and seeing hundreds of copies of the game in both regular and collector's edition versions this weekend, I have a new tag-line for it:

Spore: It's what's in stock.

Re:How gracious of you

[ultranova]

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.

More importantly, calling things which aren't stealing stealing is slowly but surely making the concept meaningless, or at least not carrying the negative overtones it once did. That can and probably will have nasty consequences, when someone does the obvious conclusion that since downloading abandonware is OK, so is looting a store, since they are both stealing.

It's a bit like how the word "sex offender" is losing its meaning due to being used in every conceivable and inconceivable context: guy who pees in the bushes, guy who walks in the street naked, guy who rapes little girls... These are all "sex offenders" if caught, so the last nasty critter gets to hide behind the first two harmless ones. Not to mention the guy who was proven innocent in a court of law but is still kept in the registry...