DRM wankers

I bet I'm going to piss some people off here, but I totally disagree with the guys wanking about DRM.  There are 200+ user reviews for Spore on Amazon.Com and 95% of them are people pissed off about the DRM.  Honestly, I didn't even know what DRM was until a month ago (Digital Rights Management, right?) - although I've used it plenty of times without knowing the name...Steam, iTunes, Xbox Live Arcade, Rock Band, etc.

I'm pretty sure these guys are just a vocal minority, but they *are* loud, so I'm going to do some troll feeding, here.

"I'm paying $50 bucks to just RENT this game?"

Let's say, worst case scenario, the answer is yes, and that EA shuts down their verification servers in two years.  It's up to you whether that value proposition is worth it.  I bet a lot of these DRM wankers are also WoW players who were willing to spend $60 to rent WoW for one month and possibly thousands of dollars to rent it for years.  It's worth it to me, for this game, though I'm a serious tightwad who hasn't paid $50 for a game in over a year.  (Up until now.)

But EA isn't going to shut down their verification servers in two years unless its costing them money - that is, people stop buying Spore.  If people stop buying Spore, it's probably because the game isn't very good anymore or the community is no longer there - in which case most of the people wanking about DRM aren't going to want to play it anymore either.

"I only get 3 installs?"

iTunes has a similar policy.  Granted, iTunes does it better, so it really does mean 3 simultaneous installs, but music is something you're more likely to need on multiple machines.  Me, I only need 1 install now and it may be years before I upgrade my PC.

"I'm being treated like a criminal!"

I've violated copyrights in the past, so I have been a criminal, and am not surprised that companies treat me like one.  Actually, I'll amend that - I'm *still* a criminal -  because I still have mp3s in my collection that I acquired in the golden age of Napster that I don't have the right to.  Maybe I'm in the minority but I doubt it.  Anyhow - they're not actively coming out and saying they don't trust you, it's a "Trust but Verify" policy.

And for those of you who think information should be free / piracy isn't a crime, then don't think of EA as treating you as a criminal, think of them as treating you as a noncustomer.

"What's the point?  People are going to pirate the game anyway."

The point is to change the economics.  If you make it harder to pirate the game and easier to get the game legitimately, people will pay for that.  I'm running the EA download manager right now to get Spore, rather than using a bittorrent server, because I suspect that there will be issues with trying to use a pirated version.  A pirated version may plain just not work;  it may work but not be able to log into the community at all;  it may seem to work fine at first but then there may be a trap that the pirate missed, etc.  Add that to me not wanting to be a criminal anymore and I'll pay the money.  It's a simple equation - will EA make more money using DRM than without it, and if Steam is any indication the answer is yes. 

And if game publishers make more money selling games that is a good thing for the consumer as well as the publisher, because they'll be able to put more money into the development of future games.

Also, I'll go so far as to say that without DRM or subscription fees or koreanish free-to-play-pay-to-upgrade models PC GAMING IS DOOMED.  Retail PC sales have been steadily declining over the years, despite the fact that are craploads more PCs than consoles out there. 

"I need to be connected to the internet?  But I wanted to play on my laptop on a plane."

That really does suck - it's not so much a problem with Spore, where you probably want to be connected to the community, but if you want to play some Half-Life on the plane it really is a problem.  I suspect there might be a way to fix this - require you to log on to the authentication server only once a day or something.

So, officially cast my vote in the "DRM is good" camp.  I'll agree that EA's current DRM is a bad example of the breed, but it's better than none. 

POST AMENDED: Jamie caves!

Ok, first off, sorry about the name calling.  As someone who has used his blog to wank about various things on a regular basis...don't know what came over me.

The most convincing argument in the comments is "But it DIDN'T stop the pirates.  They cracked it Day One.  All it does is piss off the consumers."

And, well, you're right.  Looks like EA blew it, and they probably would have spent less and sold more if they hadn't had the DRM in the first place.

That said, maybe they should have spent *more* effort on making the game difficult-to-crack.  If I was the manager making the decision, I'd have to see some numbers crunched - how much is it going to cost to make the game tougher to pirate vs. estimates of how much the damage is.

I'll repeat though non-subscription PC gaming is doomed and for it to survive we need DRM - not so much for Spore, because that's going to be profitable, but for the little guys.  Thankfully, there's Steam, and people don't get too pissed off about that anymore.

Comments

[Loredena]

As originally proposed (3 installs, checks online every damned time you play) I considered their DRM overly stringent, to the point I wouldn't have purchased the game. Because I AM one of the ones who wants it on both my desktop and the laptop, and doesn't want to worry about my connection, or lack thereof.

I'm also one of those people who plays MMOs and I haven't pirated a game in 20 years -- but I do use virtual cds so I don't have to keep track of my CDs for a once-a-week game.

Now, they are only authenticating the first time; but, you have to log in to get the online content, or share your content out, which is sufficient encouragement to me to log in most of the time, while letting me still play offline on my laptop as needed. A compromise I can live one, and one that resulted in my downloading the game at launch (not to mention ponying up for the creature creator earlier this summer).

[Loredena]

I'm posting a separate response to your vote that 'DRM is good'. I am here to tell you that in the long run, DRM is bad. Why? Because you are driving away people like me.

I don't play console games, I play PC games. I'm over 40. I haven't pirated a game since I was 20 (and I've been playing games since I was 15, and I bought plenty even when I was 20).

Where there is a game that my husband and I are both interested in, we buy two copies, not buy one and install on both our computers. (We do install our own copies on 2 computers each, but it's not like we're playing on both simultaneously).

We easily spend 50-100 dollars *per month* on computer games. More and more, those dollars are going to online games, because we are both sick of being treated like criminals by those trying to sell us games.

No, I really don't want to keep my CD in the drive to play it -- I don't play the same game every day, and I can't be bothered to keep track of the damn disks. I have Virtual Drive as a result.

Yes, I have software on my computer that can copy a CD; I kindof like backups. And as a holder of an MSDN license, I occasionally have need to mount a virtual CD, imagine that (plus, see note above). Refusing to install or run because you don't like what's on my computer? If I *really* want to play it, I'll apply a crack to my legally purchased game, but more likely that's a 'its broken' return to the store, and a note not to buy again from the same company.

And I really loved the one that resulted in my CD drive no longer working at all (SecureROM I think -- the Russian one).

And if your DRM software installs a rootkit? Well, then, it's malware, and I won't be buying from you again.

I've bought games, and expansion packs for those games, from Stardock that I might not have otherwise even tried, simply because I like the company and their policies. I've opted not to buy games for similar reasons.

Those 20 year old pirates weren't going to buy your game anyway, they aren't lost sales. People like me? We're actually lost sales.

[Duncan]

Okay... let's play my favourite game: Devil's Advocate. You've taken the pro-DRM position, and opposed several of the arguments that have been raised. Rebuttal time.

"I'm paying $50 bucks to just RENT this game?"

I don't mind renting games. In fact, I do it a lot. I pay money every year (2 years and counting now) for a service called GameTap. I pay the service fee and can play any games I want, via download, so long as GameTap continues to renew the license on them. Several games available when I signed up have been removed. When I stop paying, I stop playing. That's easy. But that is also part of the contract that I entered into when I signed up; it was clearly laid out for me.

If I buy Spore, Mass Effect (PC), or one of several other games that limits my installs and forces me to connect with a server to authenticate, then what was the point of BUYING the game. If they want to rent me something, then two things need to happen. First they need to tell me I am renting their game (MMOs do this), and second they need to make the rental time worthwhile.

I'd compromise on this point for one condition and guarantee from the game producer: after a specified amount of time they remove the phone-home piracy check from ALL copies of the game, and make it available though an easily available patch.

"I only get 3 installs?"

Why can't I play my game on my main system, my laptop, let my wife play, and let my brother play too (because he's a student and can't afford it)? If this game was a DVD movie, a CD, or a book I wouldn't have a problem doing this. Everybody would be able to enjoy the content. Not, perhaps, at the same time, but the number of users, devices, or location are not limited. Copying the content to a system and running it shouldn't be limited. The number of active copies running might be a reasonable limit, at least for a while. Neverwinter Nights did this well by allowing you to install it on any systems you wanted, and play the single player game without issue. Keys were only checked when you tried to connect to multi-player game.

"I'm being treated like a criminal!"

Guilty until proven innocent? Actually, I don't mind providing a reasonable assurance that I've purchased a game. Unfortunately, no one can decide a centralized and easy way to do this. CD keys were a method, but if we can't rely on that then what? What other methods do we have to employ, and how many do I have to go through to prove myself?

This annoys me with any media. Those anti-piracy ads at the beginning of DVDs started this whole thing. Pirates will never see them, and I have to sit though them because I paid for the content. This isn't customer service, and I think all of the marketers that think these are a good idea need to read the collected works of Seth Godin.

"What's the point? People are going to pirate the game anyway."

Making the game harder to pirate often goes against the goal of making the game easier to enjoy legitimately. If your DRM is aggravating people, breaking your game, or preventing paying customers from playing, then you have done NOTHING to shift the economics in your favour.

For more than 3/4 of all users, pirating software isn't even within their scope of knowledge. For a casual-oriented game, like those made by Will Wright, that number is probably closer to 90%. Most people haven't a clue where to look, or what software to use, or how to navigate the idiosyncrasies of pirated software. Those that get pointed in the right direction are already scared of the other things that hang around pirate sites, like viruses and mal-ware. Here there be monsters that most users won't venture near.

If you are going to implement DRM, make sure that you aren't going to frustrate the users, lest you drive them to look for something less aggravating. That means most DRM is doing the opposite of helping the economic situation.

"I need to be connected to the internet? But I wanted to play on my laptop on a plane."

This is the new version of "I need to have the disc in the drive?". The disc in the drive restriction was useful when you still needed to load data off of it. The same is true for the internet connection. If you remember, many CD-based DRM solutions were simply broken for many users who had the unfortunate luck to own an incompatible drive. The solution for these people was to buy new hardware or pirate the game.

The long-term solution for many companies who implemented the faulty DRM in their games was to disable it in a patch. They gave up because it was a bad idea. What makes the Internet check version any better?

-----

My vote is DRM is bad. DRM is the implementation of a flawed logical progression that stems from an economic position that is rapidly changing. The people who promote (and control) DRM are those who would lose the most if the market changed and we stopped relying on the centralized, top-heavy content markets. It is a control mechanism with the goal of preventing change as opposed to preventing piracy. It has been proved that it does not (and cannot) do the latter. That hidden agenda is what makes it dangerous.

[Brandon Bloom]

Although it has been proven to be impossible to create air tight DRM, I believe it is a necessary evil.

DRM is "good" in that it helps prevent casual piracy and delays hardcore piracy.

DRM is "bad" in that it often degrades the experience for paying customers.

I for one am just happy to see customers voting with their wallets and standing up for what they believe in with their reviews.

When DRM works (XBLA), customers don't mind or even notice. It protects content producers and keeps prices down for customers.

When DRM fails (XBLA after your console is sent for repair), customers get upset and rightfully so. Enough people voted with their wallets and voices that Microsoft came up with a way to help these customers.

You can be sure that Microsoft won't make that mistake again, just as you can be sure that EA is going to have to learn its lesson about about draconian restrictions sooner or later.

[Brandon Bloom]

Although it has been proven to be impossible to create air tight DRM, I believe it is a necessary evil.

DRM is "good" in that it helps prevent casual piracy and delays hardcore piracy.

DRM is "bad" in that it often degrades the experience for paying customers.

I for one am just happy to see customers voting with their wallets and standing up for what they believe in with their reviews.

When DRM works (XBLA), customers don't mind or even notice. It protects content producers and keeps prices down for customers.

When DRM fails (XBLA after your console is sent for repair), customers get upset and rightfully so. Enough people voted with their wallets and voices that Microsoft came up with a way to help these customers.

You can be sure that Microsoft won't make that mistake again, just as you can be sure that EA is going to have to learn its lesson about about draconian restrictions sooner or later.

[Nat]

I'm in the DRM-bad camp. I see why it's happening but feel like it's a short-sighted implementation that doesn't really solve the problem and inconveniences the fan base. You're imposing all these limitations on me for something I've bought, not rented. It totally feels like the digital bait and switch. Tell me I am buying something but then pull the rug from under me and change the rules? I hate to think that something I've bought could get bricked and I have zero protection or safe guards. What would have happened to the Xbox360 if they didn't spend that $1B in repairs? As the customer, I don't feel respected or insured that my purchase is safe. I have to agree with the "Guilty until proven innocent?" sentiment. DRM is un-American! There must be a better way to protect our games.

[Anon]

I dislike DRM.

Games are entertainment. I don't buy a game to struggle against its DRM. I play to relax. Any product with DRM can turn into a nightmare when it gets in the way of enjoyment.

I happily give money to artists that treat me with respect, and sell me entertainment in an unrestricted format.

If a company treats me well, I wish them success. If they don't, I won't shed a tear when they fail.

[Kandagger]

I’m not that old, but I’ve played games where the method they used to prevent illegal copies was include some sort of cipher in with the actual rulebook. The specific example in mind is “The Secret of Monkey Island” which came with a cardboard wheel with a bunch of dates on it—which you needed to match to a picture on the screen. It was clever, amusing, and not terribly memorable…until we lost it. You can imagine how…shall we say, perturbed I was when I went to try and finish (yes, I said finish—monkey island was hard) said game and couldn’t even get onto the title screen. And so it remained for years, until the game was re-released onto CD minus the “security measures”. The game was beaten, finally, some time after that…but the fact remains it took me somewhere around a decade to finish this game, all because the company was afraid of people copying it. Thus I fall squarely in the Anti-DRM category. Security is a good thing…but not when your customers get caught in the crosshairs

[davidicus]

.

rights management is one thing, (people deserve to get paid for the fruits of their labor), but until it's fair and transparent---and certainly while it becomes increasingly draconian---get used to a justified uproar.

what if every software package you used required a different CD in the drive? Adobe may have never grown had they instituted that scheme.

i attended a Kai Krause keynote speech once where he said that the more software he gives away, the more money he makes. almost everyone in the auditorium put up their hand when he wondered who had ever used a pirated version of his software. i believe he still lives in a castle.

this, in the newly-budding era of pay-whatever-you-want albums that---surprise!---make money. hmm.

there's a better solution out there folks. we're getting closer.

.

[Jeffool]

EA's DRM was cracked before the game came out, is severely limiting to legit users, and pirates aren't inconvenienced at all by this. Add in the bad press that the DRM has been getting for months with hardcore gamers (those most likely to know the ins and outs of piracy,) not to mention the recent bad press (like Amazon,) and I find it difficult to take seriously the notion that they'll gain money by using this method of DRM. (Especially considering they licensed it from someone else.)

And really, that's what it's about, 'this' method of DRM. Even you admit that EA's example in the case of Spore is a bad one, and I think that's the important part here. There's a reason (relatively) so few people complain about Steam in comparison. Valve is doing it right. I've not played any Steam games I own in a while (no PC worth playing them on recently,) so I told my cousin he sign in and play them; effectively loaning him my games. Now he knows that when I do get a newer PC, he's going to have to give the account back to me, and buy his own games. That's exactly how it would work if I were loaning him traditional discs, only it's even easier given I just send him my user/pass. Valve knows what they're doing.

Now, I'm absolutely someone who thinks that the system of copyright we currently have has a limited time left, and that pirates will always win out over DRM (as they did here,) so just give everything away. That said, I do completely understand people wanting to be paid for their work, and I think it should be a choice to give it away or not. As a gamer, even if I did have a better PC (which I hope to in a couple of weeks,) I just couldn't justify spending the cost of a new game on three installs of anything.

We all know the discussions about 'gaming's Citizen Kane'. The reason we haven't seen it (in addition to focus on systems/physics and not subtext,) is that the vast majority of gamers (and developers) see everything in version numbers. Sim City was good, 2 was better. The Sims was amazing, 2 refined and improved. Everything from Pac-Man to Civilization had a better version. Spore may be revolutionary, but someone, if not EA, will make an evolutionary (hah! get it?!) better version that I'll find less offensive in registration. I'll just wait for that one.

[greggman]

I was on the fence about whether or not to purchase Spore. This put me decidedly in the "no" camp. I'm generally in the "DRM is bad" side but I can live with it when it doesn't suck XBLA/PSN/Steam

Clearly though the Spore DRM sucks so it's no Spore for me. I'll wait for a 360 or PS3 version (even if that's forever).

[Paul Evans]

There has to be DRM, but it should be fair. The XBox thing of a cert being associated with a box (which can now be moved) and your gamertag seems like a good thing. Means you can play disconnected if you like from your won console, and connected from any console.

The 360 being a closed system makes that easier though... I wonder how well that system could be applied to the PC.

[Jeffool]

Paul, that's Steam, just add in server-based multiplayer for no extra charge, anyway.

[ac]

The copy protection failed and rather quickly so. If EA is still going to keep it in as is for legit users then it would not be far fetched to say the DRM code either was not properly done (There are uncrackable copy protections out there, game publishers just haven't looked/wanted to use them) or it's actually working - meaning the DRM is there to do something else than prevent piracy.

As someone who has both bought and downloaded some games I tend to get a silly feeling after buying something and then hear a mate got it for free. I feel that the publisher didn't do its due diligence in implementing the protections thus the value of my purchase is inflated due to the pirates copies. As long as the game isn't sold just as a license this argument has some merit because who wants to buy my used game if they can torrent it due to publisher not bothering to do a proper protection? If the DRM is part of the package and is said to prevent piracy and didn't prevent piracy would it be illogical to say the product is broken and return it for a refund?

[ac]

> If you make it harder to pirate the game and easier to get the game legitimately

This sounds good and is goodness that I agree with it's just that game biz gave up on the protection game and instead chose to milk legit buyers more rather than fix the real problem - cracking of the game. So how are they going to make it harder to pirate? We've seen how many versions of the popular protections and what have they done so far?

There was a presentation at one gamefest some years ago that detailed few aspects of how to solve the piracy issue in a way that actually could work and so far there's zero indication that publishers are trying any of that.

[smokey]

you really have no idea about the DRM in use for this game, yeah go ahead download it and intall a rootkit on your computer,

The rootkit is in essance a VIRUS, that isn't picked up by any AV scanners out there, very few rootkits are,

a rootkit hides itself from the operating system and can execute code at will, it is the worst kind of virus and if your computer is open to one it's more likly to be infected by others.

here's the kicker. you shop online, any of your login's, card numbers, the naked pictures of your neighbour can be scooped up and transmitted anywhere a rootkit wants.

As for gaming on the PC is doomed, yeah its doomed by the publishers cripling the PC games, not releasing triple A titles on PC at the same time as their console counterparts. The publishers are killing the PC gaming industry, PC Gamers are crying out for games to play, but they want good games, not the ton's and ton's of dross that pumped out. piracy isn't the reason for declining pc gaming sales. in the last 4 years there have been more pirated ps2 games than pc games, the simple fact is there will always be a % of pirates out there, and the DRM solutons being used won't stop it, if anything it adds to the problem, causing more people to look for the working drm free software.

As for you A$$ economic comments. your a fool the draconian DRM they use can render your legit game unplayable and the only winners in this situation are the Pirates who get to play a working game unhindered.
DRM doesn't make it harder to copy a game it makes it harder to acctually play a legit version.
jeez EA want to kill of the PC Gaming market because they can make 20% more per game sold on a console, than on a PC. They're so greedy that they don't even care about the comsumer.
If you love games prove it with your wallet.
Do your research, don't buy the dross, don't fall into the hype machine. try a demo or two. STOP BUYING RUBBISH as they'll just keep pumping more out.

[Pag]

It seems to me like the best way to reduce piracy would be to sell games at a reasonable price. Who would pirate Spore if it cost $15?

I never understood why games cost so damn much. If I'm a fan of Harry Potter, I can buy the book, see the movie in theaters, buy the soundtrack and buy the DVD for the price of the game. How does that make sense? Is it any wonder people pirate games when they cost 3 times as much as other mass entertainment? (and don't give me the "it costs less per hour of entertainment" bullshit argument -- books are cheaper per hour, 10 hour games cost as much as 30 hour games, and nobody buys entertainment by the hour).

Legitimate copies of games already cost a lot more than pirated copies. Add DRM and it becomes less convenient to buy the game rather than pirate it. What reason is there to not be a pirate beyond "it would be the wrong thing to do"?

[Christian Mogensen]

Valve/Steam lets you play Half-Life 2 off-line (on the plane) as much as you like, once you have authenticated once.

So you need to activate your Half-Life 2 game before you get on the plane, but after that you don't need to be on-line to play.

EA should give up their stupid downloader and make nice with Steam.

[Jeffool]

I guess in my 'blind rage' (kidding, kidding) I missed the 'on the plane' comment, but Christian's absolutely right. Basically, if Steam thinks there's any chance you're connected to the internet and are trying to fool it, it won't let you play. If you're on a laptop sans net, just make sure it's not searching for an internet signal (turn the wifi completely off. It's just a few mouse clicks in My Network Places.)

Once when my internet provider was down Steam wouldn't let me play my games. Turns out that the cable being connected to the computer (with the Local Area Connection being enabled) was enough for Steam to think I was just blocking it from the net and it wouldn't start. All I had to do was disable the Local Area Connection in My Network Places and it worked like a charm. Though, that was years ago. They may've changed it since.

[Jamie Fristrom]

So, how come the most vehement defender of DRM has the worst grammar?

Publishers actually make larger margins off of PC games than console games - typically double, because they aren't paying the console manufacturer licensing fees. Not to mention they don't have to go through cert. Publishers would prefer PC's. Retailers and publishers are being forced away from PC games because they don't sell.
And why don't they sell? I believe it's mostly piracy. Of course I can't prove it, but nobody can prove that there's more PS2 piracy than PC piracy, either - how could one measure the extent of piracy? There's no TRST for that kind of thing.

[grumpy]

"The point is to change the economics. If you make it harder to pirate the game and easier to get the game legitimately, people will pay for that."
I think you've got it completely upside down. DRM *does* change the economics. It makes it harder to *buy* the game. Pirates could play Spore on release day, and they never have to call EA to get the game reactivated. They can install it on both their laptop and desktop.
I can't, because I'm stupid enough to pay for the game.

And that's why I chose not to pay for Mass Effect.
I'm not saying all DRM is bad. I don't have a problem with Steam, for example. However, if I get *less* value by paying a game than I do by pirating it, there is a problem.

As for your "the pirated version may not work", that's rubbish too. Remember how Ubisoft very recently released a no-cd crack for one of their games? Because the legal version didn't work. But the pirated one did. Remember how quite a lot of people had their PC's seriously screwed up by StarForce DRM (messing up their DVD drives)? Remember about Sony's rootkit fiasco?

Pirates don't have to suffer *any* of that.

Yes, this does indeed change the economics, but not in a way that benefits developers *or* customers.

[grumpy]

Just to elaborate on the above, I didn't pirate Mass Effect either, I just chose not to buy it.

And the nice thing about Steam is that while it effectively hinders piracy, it doesn't harm legitimate customers in any way. I can download Halflife 2 from Steam servers *as often as I want*. I can install Halflife 2 on as many computers as I like. As often as I want. I never have to call Valve to ask for permission to install the game I paid $50 for. Steam is DRM that, if anything, gives me *more* value for my money. It gives me the ability to backup games easily (hard to do that with games using crazy disc protection), and it gives me the ability to download the game easily if I need to. DRM isn't bad. But if it starts hurting legitimate customers, it's a serious problem. And if it doesn't hinder piracy either, it's just ridiculous. Spore was cracked on release day. Just how much piracy did it prevent? On the other hand, I know it has prevented several sales of the game.

And the most ironic thing is that Spore is so reliant on online connectivity anyway, that DRM isn't really that necessary. Most people would buy the game simply because while pirated versions may allow you to play offline, they won't let you connect to their servers and download other people's creatures, or upload yours. Spore has a business model that'd work very well *without* DRM.

And finally, I can't for the life of me understand why some people have a problem with the Amazon "protests". I mean, welcome to capitalism and, yes, democracy. None of us *have* to buy a product. And we're allowed to speak our minds when we're dissatisfied with something. And when we encounter something we feel is unacceptable, I'd say it's quite reasonable to 1) let others know about the problem, and 2) stage some kind of protest to let the company behind the product know.

Finally, I find it funny that it's the (few) DRM proponents who seem to be the most immature. I'm not calling anyone "wankers". And I don't see why anyone deserves to be called a wanker simply for not buying a product.

I'd expected better from you. A rational argument perhaps. Not mudflinging and arguments that don't really stand up to scrutiny. If you're going to claim that on the whole, Spore's DRM, which was cracked on day 1, prevents enough piracy to make up for the lost sales from people who dislike DRM, let's see some numbers. If you're going to claim that this makes EA and the developers more money than a less extreme DRM implementation, show us the numbers.

That'd be a lot more convincing than just calling people wankers.

[Jamie Fristrom]

Ok - consider me chastised. I suppose I was a bit pissed off at the protest, and hence used the term wanker, because I actually wanted to use the amazon user-review system to get an idea of whether I should buy the game or not. An overreaction on my part, no doubt - surely people have the right to buy or not buy a game for any reason they care to name, and surely they have the right to speak their mind about it too.

For that matter, there's usually a hue & cry when anybody releases anything - there was a hue & cry about Steam when Half-Life came out. You'd think I'd be immune by now.

And no, I don't have the numbers and neither does EA - wouldn't it be nice if they could release Spore in one universe with DRM and in another without and compare? We're going by guesswork. What I do know is that retail PC gaming is in the toilet but Steam is firing along on all cylinders. That's a pretty strong datum. I agree it would have been better & awesome if EA released Spore on Steam. But I'm not surprised they did their own thing and I'm fine with it.

[Jeffool]

I didn't even know EA had an online store. I've slammed their lack of one (apparently wrongly,) a few times recently in different places and haven't been corrected, so I wonder how many other people know of it. (Whereas gog.com is getting mad gamer love.)

Is the EA Store comparable to Steam in any way/shape/form, or is it just the web-store approach?

[Ugh]

The fact that you're OK with this kind of nazi bullshit just sickens me. Have you no ethics? Yeah, piracy is wrong and DRM is "supposed" to stop piracy, but think of this: Did it really stop it? Of course not. Not even a full day after release and it was up on torrents fully cracked (and apparently working quite well if the comments on tpb are to be believed, so there goes your "it might not work" theory). It wasn't even worth the effort of trying to protect.

Now, let's get to the real heart of the matter - Second-hand sales. That's what this kind of drm is trying to prevent. They don't give a blind shit about piracy, they know they can't stop the pirates. But it's very well publicized that EA is against second-hand sales of their games. Which, I remind you, is A LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE MARKET! They're trying to interfere with free market. And for that they should be made to pay the consequences. So when you stand up for this kind of crap and say "it's fine with me" then you're saying "Hey, it's OK for a large corporation to try and interfere with the market." You should be ashamed of yourself for aligning yourself to those scum.

You're a disgrace to the PC gaming industry.

[grayson.burrows]

YOUR LICENSE TO USE AND PLAY THE GAME

As most EULA'S clearly state you do not "own" the game. Anytime ygu pay money for a game you are, in a sense, renting it. I still don't understand why some people think that since they purchased the software they can do with it as they please.

[Jamie Fristrom]

Wow, dude, do you normally win people over with that kind of rhetoric? I would have deleted your post, calling me names, telling me I have no ethics...but I guess and I'm not one to talk, with my "wankers" and "trolls".

And you raise a good point - one I honestly didn't think of. Although you can't go into GameStop and get a second-hand PC game, there is a market on eBay. Legal and legitimate, as you say. And this is a problem with all DRM, not just Spore's: I don't think you can resell products from iTune, Steam, XBLA, etc. It never bothered me, I guess because I never resell my PC games, but maybe I am ethically deficient in this area and a disgrace to PC gaming.

I suppose the ultimate solution would be a kind of digital distribution where people could then resell their downloads. Barring that, digital distribution should be cheaper than retail, since you can't resell. Of course, that'll piss off retailers - they're not going to want to carry your product if their customers can get it much cheaper online. Me, I'm willing to pay the same price for digital distribution because I know I won't resell and I love the convenience.

Anyhow, I knew I'd piss people off but wow.

[Nat]

I hate that EA makes me create a separate EA account to play their games online. Anyways, I like the idea of shipping the game already "hacked." Have a documented way of playing the game for free that is very complex that only a small portion of the people who download it will actually be able to figure it out. There would be hundreds of confusing and conflicting forum posts on just how to make it work and many mirrors of the original "hack" that even if a real hacked version comes out, finding and downloading the right one will be an endeavor on itself decreasing the number of illegal plays. The more hoops you have to jump through the less likely you'll want to endure to the end (especially if you can't see the end of the tunnel). It's like how long do you sit in an online game lobby before you give up?

[Brit]

"but I totally disagree with the guys wanking about DRM..."

You're American I guess? Perhaps you should look up the meaning of that good ol' English word before abusing it again - because in the phrase above it actually means the exact opposite to what you mean. It's also highly offensive, you tosser... ;)

[Jamie Fristrom]

I thought it was: if you're wanking OVER something, then it means you love it so much you pleasure yourself, but if you wank ABOUT something, you're publicly masturbating. But maybe that's just the way we talk in the states.