EA/Maxis censoring & threatening customers!

[Dale]

And once again - it's the pirates (even the righteously indignant ones) that are to blame for DRM, not the publishers. If y'all just decided to pay the 50-or-so bucks for your games instead of rushing to TPB to grab it, we wouldn't have to deal with Securom. Spore being pirated doesn't show the insignificance of DRM, it shows that it doesn't go far enough, sadly.

You obviously know nothing about the legal ramifications of DRM, and the controls it places on YOU the user.

The power these publishers have over you through DRM is immense. I think you need to read up on what it is, and what freedoms you the customer give up.

Piracy == bad
DRM == bad

Bottom line.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Dale


You obviously know nothing about the legal ramifications of DRM, and the controls it places on YOU the user.

The power these publishers have over you through DRM is immense. I think you need to read up on what it is, and what freedoms you the customer give up.

Piracy == bad
DRM == bad

Bottom line.

Give it up, Dale. He is beyond reach

We all know how bad DRM is. EternalSpark seems to live in a fantasy world.

Asmodean

[EternalSpark]

Originally posted by Dale
You obviously know nothing about the legal ramifications of DRM, and the controls it places on YOU the user.

I know about the legal ramifications and the controls it places on me. They don't justify me downloading the game for free, though. Besides, if I want to argue the whole "Don't treat me like a pirate" line, it's extremely important to not be a pirate!

I'd love to go back in time and show a snapshot of today to all those lazy little bastards that whined so very hard about having to take a small shiny disk in their computer to play a game.

Originally posted by Dale
The power these publishers have over you through DRM is immense. I think you need to read up on what it is, and what freedoms you the customer give up.

Powers they have over us because we told them we can't control ourselves.
Freedoms we gave up? We surrendered them.

I accept DRM because - shock - I'm not a pirate. Those that ***** about it and use it as a reason to be a pirate are the ones that are the problem.

Originally posted by Dale
Piracy == bad
DRM == bad
Bottom line.

Piracy begats DRM. It's unarguable. Well, I suppose it's arguable, but you'd need a TARDIS or a DeLorean to change historical facts in order to greatly alter stuff so that you'd have anything to convince me otherwise.

You guys think I like DRM. I dislike it. But you know what? We brought it on ourselves. As a community, we have to look at ourselves, admit that, and go from there. We're reaping what us gamers sow.

[dannubis]

Not on my hard disk...

[Solver]

EternalSpark, I think your line of reasoning is completely wrong. It's like living in a totalitarian police state and saying people brought it upon themselves because they commit crimes and need the control.

Saying that DRM exists just because piracy exists is faulty. Yes, in a broad sense, such protective measures exist because of piracy. But if there were no piracy, the only thing you'd see is a "hey, there's no piracy, so our approach works" statement and DRM would continue.

Likewise, the people who "whine" about games needing a CD to play aren't the ones being punished. DRM punishes people who do, after all, choose to accept whatever the publisher does - CD checks, installation limits or whatever. Pirates continue pirating as happily as ever, people who paid for the game are also still easily able to find and use a crack. DRM has changed absolutely nothing compared to what it was like when the restrictions were softer. The only thing that's changed is that customers who don't use cracks are getting restricted more than before. For pirates, nothing changes. For customers who use cracks, nothing changes.

I am really glad that there are some companies taking a good approach with game distribution. I understand the approach of trying to put some protection in, but then the distribution system should not make its protection a painful issue for customers and should, ideally, actually add some convenience.

[EternalSpark]

It's like living in a totalitarian police state and saying people brought it upon themselves because they commit crimes and need the control.

I'd rather not get into the philosophical nature of the argument (given that "philosophical" is another word for "pointless"), but if society turned as unlawful in real life as they did online (The looting in post-Katrina NOLA comes to mind, but its the only analogy I can think of), you'd be damn sure I'd be thinking that the government should have a stricter hand on things. And I don't think I'd be the only one.

But if there were no piracy, the only thing you'd see is a "hey, there's no piracy, so our approach works" statement and DRM would continue.

We agree there.

The only thing that's changed is that customers who don't use cracks are getting restricted more than before. For pirates, nothing changes. For customers who use cracks, nothing changes.

If I were a publisher making computer games that cost in the millions to produce, I'd really need to find some solid proof that the groups you mentioned were seperate entities.

That sounds like a troll, but think about it. EA obviously knows that Spore is being pirated a lot. They've got numbers on that front that show them as such. But what solid, numerical evidence do they have to convince them that we're not all selfish, immoral, cheap pirates? Very little, I'd say. Sure, nerds online point at Stardock, but... c'mon, it's Stardock.

understand the approach of trying to put some protection in, but then the distribution system should not make its protection a painful issue for customers and should, ideally, actually add some convenience.

I would argue that the most of the alleged "pain" from Spore's DRM are actually very trivial when it comes to your average gamer. The only DRM that I can see being a problem to your everyday average gamer is the three-install limit.

[Solver]

I'd rather not get into the philosophical nature of the argument (given that "philosophical" is another word for "pointless"), but if society turned as unlawful in real life as they did online (The looting in post-Katrina NOLA comes to mind, but its the only analogy I can think of), you'd be damn sure I'd be thinking that the government should have a stricter hand on things. And I don't think I'd be the only one.

You're right that it's a philosophical argument in no small part. I'll just say I disagree with your philosophy on this, I think that stricter control is rarely the right answer (although sometimes it is an effective answer) to most of the society's problem.

If I were a publisher making computer games that cost in the millions to produce, I'd really need to find some solid proof that the groups you mentioned were seperate entities.

That sounds like a troll, but think about it. EA obviously knows that Spore is being pirated a lot. They've got numbers on that front that show them as such. But what solid, numerical evidence do they have to convince them that we're not all selfish, immoral, cheap pirates? Very little, I'd say. Sure, nerds online point at Stardock, but... c'mon, it's Stardock.

You know, a lot of research is done into piracy. I think that the very fact that games sell well at all is excellent proof that all people aren't potential pirates because, let's admit it, pirating games is ridiculously easy. And let's remember that pirated games are identical to legit games. Sometimes, for online games, pirated versions have no/reduced online capability. But look at, say, Bioshock - it's sold over a million copies in less than a year and it's a single-player only game. It's one of those games where a pirated version has no functionality loss whatsoever, and somehow all people didn't choose to pirate it. Same for Bethesda games.

And Stardock is a very valid example. They are excellent proof that games do sell if they include no copy protection. Sure, Stardock games don't approach the sales numbers of Maxis, Firaxis or Valve games but then again, Stardock is a much smaller company and perhaps more interestingly, their games are quite niche, even among the strategy genre.

I recently got Company of Heroes Gold. The game doesn't require the CD if you sign in to your online account. So its online features are a good enough reason to buy apparently. It just goes to show that if you make a half-decent game, people are indeed ready to pay.

I'd also argue that other social aspects show similar conclusions. Say, shoplifting - modern supermarkets are designed so that the business has to resign itself to some shoplifting issues, you can't catch them all. Minor shoplifting is easy to do but still the number of shoplifters is far smaller than the number of legit customers. Yes, even minor shoplifting carries a higher risk of being caught than piracy, but I still think it goes to show that most people aren't immediately going to commit a crime if they know they'd get away with it.

Finally, even if the publisher didn't believe there were honest people out there, why go for modern more restrictive DRM over old CD checks? Here you have easily available numbers showing that more restrictive DRM doesn't decrease piracy, Spore isn't getting pirated any less than, I dunno, Starcraft.

I would argue that the most of the alleged "pain" from Spore's DRM are actually very trivial when it comes to your average gamer. The only DRM that I can see being a problem to your everyday average gamer is the three-install limit.

Agreed, the installation limit is the part I find to be problematic. I think that limiting the number of times you can install the game crosses the line of acceptable protection. As said in my previous post, I can understand the need to include some measure of protection (though again, I vastly prefer it done like Valve does it), but limited installs are too much of a restriction.

[Wiglaf]

Nerd rage is a perfect way of putting it.

Look, you're buying a videogame, not importing a wife from China. If there's minor restrictions on it, and six years from now you cannot use it, oh well. This is not huge investment, nor is it a life changing thing. If in 2010, when Spore is worth $1.00 on ebay, and you suddenly cannot access your creatures unless you call EA, and this causes huge problems for you, you probably need to get some more sex frankly.

Three installs is two too many, anyway. If you really need to reinstall a game that much, you probably need to reinstall a new brain as well since you have obsessive compulsive problems and buy too many computers.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Three installs is two too many, anyway. If you really need to reinstall a game that much, you probably need to reinstall a new brain as well since you have obsessive compulsive problems and buy too many computers.

Wrong!!! It's not three installs you get, but three activations (read the "The truth needs to come out" thread to see more information regarding this). Every time you reinstall the game you lose an activation (which happens when you e.g. have just reinstalled Windows, which for most computer users doesn't just happen every time a new Windows comes out), every time you make a hardware change you lose an activation (add some more memory or a new HD? One activation down)
I would have lost all my activations for Spore by now. I would then have to call EA every 6 months... aint gonna happen!!!

[Wiglaf]

Er, you can't be right about adding more RAM, but nice try. There's no way that could impact the activation.

Anyway, you can call EA and get additional activations. This is so funny that people are losing their sperm over this. It's a pretty cheap (and stupid) videogame. Relax, live a little, and try to not constantly buy new machines.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Er, you can't be right about adding more RAM, but nice try. There's no way that could impact the activation.

Nice try, but you can...

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Anyway, you can call EA and get additional activations

Calling EA is not free, also depending on where you live you may have to call to a foreign country

And why would I have to call them to be allowed to play a game I've paid for


If people don't take a stand against this now, it'll just get worse

[Wiglaf]

And why would I have to call them to be allowed to play a game I've paid for

Because it cuts down on piracy

Get used to it. No one's rights are being violated. Game developers have been robbed blind by nerds hiding behind their keyboards for too long. They call the shots.

And get a whiff of this salad: pirates can't use any of Spores online features, in large part due to its extensive DRM activation

Nice try, but you can...

Prove it. Smells of BS generated by the bittorrent-whoring, no female genetalia-getting Amazon-terrorizing nerds.

[Solver]

FFS, Adagio, stop feeding the trolls...

[Dale]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
And get a whiff of this salad: pirates can't use any of Spores online features, in large part due to its extensive DRM activation

If EA hadn't put SecureROM or every other limitation and just had the "online serial account" to access the online content, we'd be in the same situation now, except every legit Spore owner wouldn't have Sony's MalWare on their computer.

The online serial account is only one small component of DRM. The ONLY one that is effective as within one day of Australian release the pirates had cracked every other policy.

Oh, and getting the online content is simple. Manually download sporecasts from www.spore.com and you'll have thousands of creatures in your game within 2 minutes.

[Solver]

Pirates actually started putting together various creature packs with installers 2 days after the game was released on the pirate scene. So you don't even have to manually import creatures from the Sporepedia to get that online content...