backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 179 comment(s) - last by OttifantSir.. on Sep 30 at 4:41 PM
Many consumers pirate Spore to avoid DRM

Spore, the new evolution game from Electronic Arts, is one of the most anticipated and hyped games to be released in recent memory. Electronic Arts implemented a strict DRM (Digital Rights Management) copyright protection called SecuROM that limits the number of computers the game can be installed on to three. This limit can be increased if a consumer calls customer support.

The fan backlash was very negative and swift as thousands of people rushed to Amazon.com to give the game a one-star ratings causing Amazon to temporarily disable its user review system. Comments such as “Draconian” and “Insult to legitimate customers” flooded the comments section.

Electronic Arts responded to the criticism in a Gamasutra article claiming the three computer limit was designed to address the needs of the majority of consumers while still limiting piracy. According to Electronic Arts own statistics, less than 25 percent have activated Spore on a second PC and less than one percent asked to activate on a third PC. As of September 12 -- when the Gamasutra article was written -- there were 453,048 activations of the Spore Creature Creator alone. 77 percent activated on only one machine, 23 percent activated more than one, and only 1 percent of users tried to activate on more than three machines. These arguments from Electronic Arts appear to miss the point as the backlash is occurring over the fact there is any limit at all and not the number of PCs you are limited to.

Electronic Arts also argues the DRM system saves consumers the hassle of having to have a disc in the drive using a onetime online authentication system as an alternative. In the Gamasutra article, Mariam Sughayer of EA's corporate communications said, "EA has not changed our basic DRM copy protection system. We simply changed the copy protection method from using the physical media, which requires authentication every time you play the game by requiring a disc in the drive, to one which uses a one-time online authentication."

Sughayer compared Spore's authentication to iTunes, which has a similar DRM system that limits the number of computers content purchased from iTunes can be played. She also stressed that installing the game doesn't transmit user information any further than as a "fingerprint" required to authenticate a user, and reports that it installs spyware or malware are "absolutely false."

In addition to Electronic Arts, Maxis also responded to the criticism on game website GamingSteve. Caryl Shaw, online producer for Spore sent GamingSteve a note repeating many of the same points pointed out by Electronic Arts:

  • We authenticate your game online when you install and launch it the first time.
  • We'll re-authenticate when a player uses online features, downloads new content or a patch for their game.
  • The new system means you don't have to play with the disc in your computer. And if you are like me, always losing discs, this will be a huge benefit.
  • You'll still be able to install and play on multiple computers.
  • You can play offline.

One ironic statement released to the gaming community by Electronic Arts stated, "You can install the game on three computers – at your office, at home or for your family. What you can’t do is make and distribute a thousand copies online." This is exactly what is happening as stated in a Torrentfreak article; many would-be buyers have chosen to pirate the game because of the invasive DRM.

On Saturday, Torrentfreak wrote that the game had already been downloaded more than 500,000 times on BitTorrent sites. This download rate exceeds that of any other pirated game in history, and in a week or two from now it will be the most pirated game ever on BitTorrent based on Torrentfreak statistics.

For comparison Crysis, one of the best selling PC games of this year has only been downloaded 420,000 times since it was released in November 2007. Although the record breaking piracy of Spore cannot be attributed solely to consumers rejecting the DRM implemented within it, it most likely helped.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Do EA Execs know anything?
By Proteusza on 9/15/2008 11:56:55 AM , Rating: 5
How much did this DRM cost EA to implement? Lets ignore the backlash over it for a second. Lets just focus on how much cash they had to hand over to SecuROM (was it?) to have this security. And how much money it costs to keep the licensing server going, and the customer reps who will undoubtedly have to deal with "I upgraded my motherboard and now I cant play Spore anymore" type queries.

They spent all that money... and it still got pirated. Heck, as far as I know it was torrented before it was released. Thats a lot of money to throw down the toilet. Even if you ignore the fact that consumers plain dont like it, it seems like a massive waste to me.

Which piraters is it going to deter? Even your average gamer knows enough about BitTorrent to download a copy of Spore. Who is it stopping? How much piracy does it prevent? And to state the quite obvious point, how many sales has EA lost because of it?

Smart thing to do would be to release a patch that removes the DRM. But we all know that isnt going to happen.

Note, before anyone jumps at me, I dont agree with piracy, and I agree that companies should be able to use means to protect their property (not that they have to use them). DRM is one of those. Nevertheless, I dont believe that DRM needs to be so onerously restrictive as this. You can have your cake and eat it.




RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By MrHanson on 9/15/2008 12:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Same thing happened to me with Mass Effect. The game kept crashing on me and I reformated my hard disk 3 times after installing different components trying to pinpoint the problem. Once I figured it out I installed the game for the 4th time and it would not let me run it. I basically have a $50 coaster now. All it says on the box is that an internet connection is required to play the game. It says NOTHING about the 3 times activation limit. If I would have know that, I would have NOT bought the game. Why can't PC game software publishers adopt USB software keys? Would it be to costly?


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By othercents on 9/15/2008 12:22:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why can't PC game software publishers adopt USB software keys? Would it be to costly?

Maybe easy to copy.

Off this idea you can have 1 key that a game code is registered too only requiring the key to be inserted and no need for internet access. That key can't be in two machines networked at the same time otherwise both keys become invalid. The key can be a one time purchase for each game manufacture, or just a standard USB flash drive that gets setup with the manufacture information allowing for multiple manufacturers on one key.

They keys can be imbeded with hardware addressing kind of like the MAC address for the network card.

Other


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By AnnihilatorX on 9/15/2008 4:13:59 PM , Rating: 1
USB keys with ROM containing a unique key would be the best DRM solution. That may be too expensive for a game though, and any DRM scheme would mean cost pass to customers.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By MrPickins on 9/15/2008 5:47:44 PM , Rating: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongle

Still in use for some software. May not be a bad idea for A-list games.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By AnnihilatorX on 9/15/2008 6:09:44 PM , Rating: 1
Well I can see them being useful for multi-thousand dollar software, but not for a game which sells for $50. The hidden cost passed to the customer as a portion of the game cost would be too high.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By mattclary on 9/16/2008 8:02:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I use LightWave which costs about a $1000 new, used to cost $2500. It's an effective measure that lets you use the software on any machine you want as long as you have the dongle with you. I love the software so much I have it's logo tattooed on my right shoulder. The software is on version 9.5 and I paid to upgrade for every version since my original purchase of version 6 about 8 years ago.

But guess what? Just like every other piece of software out there, a cracked version is easily obtainable, yet, since I really love the software and the community of fellow users, I pay for the software. Upgrades are in the neighborhood of $400.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By johnadams on 9/16/2008 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
Dongles are crackable, albeit a little harder.

The problem with e.g. USB dongles is that you only have that many USB ports. Imagine if all software are protected using dongles, you'd have dongles sticking out of every usb port and usb hubs etc. As with any hardware, dongles can be physically damaged. What to do then?

Every software will remain crackable until maybe when quantum computers go mainstream and they encrypt the whole platform, preventing crackers from running debuggers and breaking into memory. But even then, I bet some genius would be able to crack it. DVD Jon FTW!


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By inighthawki on 9/15/2008 9:58:17 PM , Rating: 5
I've got an even better idea than yours. How about issuing each copy of the game with a unique "cd-key" which you need to install the game, and a simple authorization to play online...It's so brilliant, it's like I've seen it before!

But in all seriousness, if you have a good game, then it will sell. If you have a good game and load it with anti-piracy crap, its not. People don't like dealing with problems. Every computer is different, to each their own problems. Look at some of the best games out there. UT2004 was a high seller for a long time. Simple cd-key check, and it didn't even require a cd to play! yet it outsold many many other games simply because it was good. I find most of the better games out there are the ones that are easiest to crack, only because they cause less problems.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Megaknight on 9/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By mattclary on 9/15/2008 1:10:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why can't PC game software publishers adopt USB software keys?


They have done this, but they use the CD as the key instead of a dongle. And yeah, it would probably add to the cost significantly, while not being any more crack proof than requiring the CD to be in the drive.

Requiring the CD to be present is a good solution IMO. It stops casual piracy with the least impact on the customer. Having a game dial home for authorization (even once) is a no-go for me.

My (deleted) review of Mass Effect from Amazon:
quote:
This game comes with three activations via the internet. I still play Planescape: Torment which was published in 1999 (9 years ago). Will you be allowed to activate Mass Effect in 2017 (9 years from now)? This system is more about limiting your ability to resell the game you purchased than preventing piracy.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By rbfowler9lfc on 9/15/2008 11:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
Why not make the game RUN from the USB key? With flash prices close to free nowadays, designing a custom crypto ASIC and placing it all on a stick wouldn't be prohibitively expensive.

It sounds stoopid, and it would be like the modern version of game cartridges, but it would sure slash the downloaded content piracy.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By lagomorpha on 9/16/2008 1:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
"Why not make the game RUN from the USB key?"

This would cause hour long loading screens for most games, and severely limit what the developers can design into the game itself.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By JoshuaBuss on 9/18/2008 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
how do you figure? even 4gb usb keys are available for a pittance these days.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By mattclary on 9/16/2008 7:56:34 AM , Rating: 4
Like any other DRM scheme, this would be easily thwarted. There comes a point where developers have to realize that as much as it sucks, their games will be pirated by a certain subset of people. I don't advocate game piracy and I don't do it, but it IS going to happen and you can't prevent it.

The best move is to make it just difficult enough that Joe Sixpack can't make 10 copies for his friends in 10 minutes, but not in-your-face enough to tick people off. If it's a good game, people will buy it.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Drexial on 9/15/2008 1:30:24 PM , Rating: 5
I like Vales answer. No CDs, no hassle with keys, easy purchase system, and if my computer crashes 10,000 times; I can hop right back into my account get the games again and play.... hell I don't even have to reinstall them disk by disk. I log in and it gets them and installs them for me. I have actually repurchased games that have since been released on steam just so I didn't need the disk anymore. Though now that I think about it... I never did try using the keys from those games. ehh the id super pack was totally worth it.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By ImSpartacus on 9/15/2008 2:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. It's nice. You think I'm getting Spore? Nope (unless I get bored one day and pirate it). Left 4 Dead is about all I'm goin for.

Dead Space is another game that will probably be locked up. I really wanted that one too.

Same thing with Crysis Warhead...


By StevoLincolnite on 9/16/2008 3:16:57 AM , Rating: 3
A friend bought Spore Galactic Edition for about $139.99 here in Australia, which is a large amount of money for a game.

The issue was that, He doesn't have the internet, nor does he want it, thus he was left with a $140 game, that although his computer is more than capable of running it, was let down by the reliance of the activation thing.

In the end I downloaded a crack which "Emulated" everything required to run the game, and whacked it onto a USB drive and took it around, the sad part about it, is that the copy protection really did piss us both off.

I probably wont buy the game, nor would I pirate it, after seeing the Cell and Creature stages, allot of the content we were promised is missing (Seems like an occurring theme in the video game industry), like swimming in the ocean before you climb on land.

Perhaps Evolva 2 might go into production one of these days.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By robinthakur on 9/16/2008 5:57:29 AM , Rating: 3
OK, this makes me really angry, and what makes EA unpopular.

I was actually going to buy Spore when it came out, then I read about this DRM thing. The short answer is that while I could quite easily pirate it, I'd rather send a message to EA in my own way. I won't download it and I wont buy it . Some of you might well say "EA doesn't care about your money when a million more people will buy it instead", but I'm saying to you that if EVERYBODY puts their collective foot down on this extremely high profile game and declares that they will not be treated in this way, EA will in future reconsider this folly. Don't pirate it, you don't need to, just don't give EA a single dollar of your money.

Buying a legitimate copy should be more convenient than waiting for hours to download the game from a torrent site shouldn't it? I reformat and rebuild my computers alot and 3 activations is a ridiculous number. I don't like the idea of calling EA to beg them that I'm not a criminal and I plain dislike the presumption of guilt here. Plus the fact that I don't like the whole dependency on EA to stay reliable and solvent for my ability to play the game. I still play Dreamcast games or old SNES games from time to time and my enjoyment of a game does not necessarily dove-tail when EA decides to stop promoting or selling it.

SEND A MESSAGE TO EA. DON'T BUY IT.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By ElBrujo on 9/21/2008 11:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's the logic! I find it ironic how people are pissed, and how they think a boycott will improve the state of PC games (especially ones that cost a lot to produce). Here's another approach: DON'T PIRATE!

I know how many people who read this site have a legitimate gripe because they actually change out hardware quite a lot, but the truth is that we are in a very small minority ( < 1%); it's really not a huge deal to be limited to 3 installs with the option to call and explain why you really need the 4th or 5th installs (which actually should just disable the 1st and 2nd installs to keep the total down to 3). Personally I'd rather do that than have to switch out discs, but I'd guess that the end effect is that the PC games market is going to dwindle to just a few games a year while XBOX and PS3 games are going to thrive, as well as get more expensive.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By BansheeX on 9/15/2008 2:42:44 PM , Rating: 3
And yet the online model completely destroys the used games market, making it impossible to get a cheap used copy or resell the game when you're done with it. Online everything also makes for a rather boring Christmas. "Oh, sweet, a voucher code enabling its recipient to one online copy of Crysis! Thanks dad!" Not to mention the whole account phishing problem that online ownership restricted to an account creates, or the inconvenience (at least on console) of having to download something on your friend's box to before you can play your game. Because even though you can log in to your account from your friend's box, the data itself was installed on your HD but not his. None of this nonsense exists with physical ownership, but the DRM is indeed getting ridiculous.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Sazar on 9/15/2008 7:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
How?

Valve has brought back classics like the old-school Doom games, for example, to a widespread audience at a very reasonable price.

Just wait for some of their weekend specials and there you go.

Agreed there are some issues with phishing but if you employ some basic security methods, the overwhelming majority should be just fine.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By jtesoro on 9/16/2008 4:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
I think what's lost is the ability to sell a game you bought at full price in order to recover some of your money back.

Buying old games at reduced prices is good, but if this is all you do you'll always end up playing old games.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By BansheeX on 9/16/2008 9:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
Look, I don't mind it for dirt old stuff that was originally $10 or less and is pointless to resell. But to buy online copies of brand new games just seems dumb to me. When I was done with my PS2, I sold the games and used the revenue to buy a PS3. Many of the games had become quite rare and sold for more than I had paid for them. You can't [i]do[/i] that with a digital-only model that prohibits resale. I do think there is going to be a push for this, because with no resale market, publishers can eliminate second-hand sales that they make no profits on, everything will be first-hand. You're essentially paying full price for the privilege to play. I don't like it. Some extremely lazy people with a lot of money might be all over it. I'm not.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By icanhascpu on 9/15/2008 8:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think the no CDs thing is a bad idea. We need a hard copy of things we buy. We also need to be able to either have the ability to copy them to new media.

Why? Becuse technology changes. In ten years of so, you may be hard pressed to find the same structure Valve is today, or an optical drive that supports legacy CDROM.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Polynikes on 9/15/2008 1:41:06 PM , Rating: 4
You know your DRM is working well when it drives customers to NOT buy your product.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By akugami on 9/15/2008 4:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
If by "well" you mean it is cumbersome and punishes your paying customers then yes, it is working very well. If by "well" you mean pirates are still cracking it within days (or even before) of release, then yes, it is that also.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Tesseract on 9/16/2008 4:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
And if by "well" you're being sarcastic, it is that too.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Noliving on 9/16/2008 2:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why in gods name would you reformat without uninstalling a game that has a limited activation before hand. It even says during installation that you need to uninstall the game before reformatting to make sure you get one of the activations back.

You do realize you can get your activations back.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Nik00117 on 9/16/2008 4:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thing of what happens when your PC blows up? When a HDD goes down? Etc all of those things happen. How am I supposed to predict that on my way to a LAN party I dropped my PC down my stairs and now have to rebuild it? O shit maybe I should uninstall all my software before I move, do anything and then the next day reinstall it. In fact I think I should do that as my normal practice of shutting down my PC. At night I uninstlal my game, save my files next mornign I reinstall. That way I can waste hours my life.

Fact of the matter is you need to make it so that idiots can't priate your games. Believe me theres a lot of them. However don't overstep your bounds don't require an authetication system for your users.

Unqiue CD keys are fine, CD in CDROM is fine too.

Each and every company needs to understand this your games iwll be priated bya select group of individuals regradless. Don't waste your time and effort cause even if you did find a way to stop those individuals from priating your game they still won't buy then you loose busienss because you ticked of a few legit cusotmers. On top of this you spent money developing a technology which in the end cost you more in sales then it stopped priates. Companies be careful on how you tread.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By AlexWade on 9/15/2008 12:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
DRM does not stop piracy. At best, it slows it down, but that is the BEST case scenario. The only ones DRM does is screw the innocent consumers. The pirates are going to pirate no matter what. To them, DRM is like a mosquito: a small irritation at best. (Don't dig too deep into that analogy.) To everyone else, DRM is like a police state: you are guilty until proven innocent, and even then you still may be guilty.

DRM should be banned. But the ones backing DRM have enough money to buy lobbyists. So, we the law-abiding consumer, are screwed. I am glad I am boycotting EA. I would even donate money to a grassroots effort to ban DRM or bring expose EA.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By BladeVenom on 9/15/2008 1:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed! The game was cracked and on all the torrent sites a week before it was on store shelves. DRM did not stop piracy; it didn't even slow it down.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By stburke on 9/15/2008 1:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
I know in my case (I'm not sure how this applies to everyone else) I usually may pirate a new game. For example Spore, like what I see and then go out and buy it. It's almost like a demo.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Hellfire27 on 9/15/2008 5:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if the pirates even care what they are doing. They are destroying the industry they hold so dear. In ten years when all of us are forced to play video games on sub par consoles because its not longer profitable to make computer games, they will be sorry. I, and many others, belive that computer gaming is vastly superior to consoles on many levels. If things keep up, we will lose this privilege for good.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By icanhascpu on 9/15/2008 7:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Youre dense.

The thing destroying it is the stupidity of these companies not understanding how the human being works.

Most of us, pirate and otherwise, will pay for EASE OF USE. We dont want BS 'protections'. We want to have an easy time, buying our serial, loging into our account -anywhere- and playing our game.

These games should be protected by accounts, not DRM. The real worth in these games is the serial coupled with the login to authorize the serial as lagit. The CDs are wothless and thats what they are trying to protect. They have lost touch with reality.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By CloudFire on 9/15/2008 8:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
nothing is being destroyed. the same thing happened when VCR's first came out with the ability to copy tape or record shows, people thought everyone was going to pirate, it didnt' happen. when the CD-R drives came out, people thought no one would buy music anymore. etc etc...

point is, pirates will always pirate, but that would not stop the normal consumer from buying what they think is right and that is why all the industries are in business today (music, games, movies on VCR/dvd/whatever)

imo, the pirates are the people who wouldn't even buy the product in the first place and it's free to them, so why not, but that is not the same with everyone.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By AE3Wolfman on 9/19/2008 12:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
I've always thought the same thing about pirates. To me, there are 3 groups of pirates. The 1st group is the ones that like you said would not have gotten it in the first place but did because its free. The 2nd group are the ones that can not afford to buy many games and just download them. The 3rd group, I fall into this one, downloads the game to test it out and then decides whether or not to buy based on that.

Does DRM stop piracy? It's a expensive joke that takes most crack groups a few hours to circumvent and the costs go to the consumer. The only company making money off of this is Securom. At least it's not as invasive as Starforce is.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By JoshuaBuss on 9/18/2008 12:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
i think the consumer choices are being heard quite well.. the games that are selling well are the games with the least restrictive DRM models and generally the highest quality content.

look at how well blizzard and valve are doing, and look at how little DRM is involved with their products.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Mitch101 on 9/15/2008 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 5
I agree can anyone name an item that was prevented from being pirated by using DRM?

To Pirates DRM is merely a speed bump driven over in a short amount of time. Once the DRM is circumvented its game over. According to another site the Spore hack was out a week before the game.

If Anyone should be sued it should be secure rom for selling an item that doesn't prevent anything. Secure Rom and other forms of DRM are the real pirates stealing money with false promises of securing a title that are nearly instantly defeated. Yup keep dumping money into DRM its working somewhere I'm sure it is.

As I read on another site the thing EA might have been most afraid of was people eventually selling thier old game. Ok if you don't ever reduce the price of the game yes you probably make a market for people selling thier used games in time.

So far the only people complaining about DRM are those who legitimately buy the game. Im sorry should we use Lease there?

Pirates - DRM Never a problem.
Secure Rom - Making tons of cash on false promises of protection.
Legitimate Purchasers - Alienated because of their purchase.

Besides anyone who has bought an EA title knows they tend to turn off their online play rather fast so Spore today but offline tomorrow.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By stburke on 9/15/2008 1:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
Or more like a stop sign that I run, only to regret it later when I get pulled over.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Mitch101 on 9/15/2008 1:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
No need to pirate if you have patience.
http://www.gogamer.com/

Subscribe to their 48 hour madness mailings.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By AnnihilatorX on 9/15/2008 1:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
What they effectively killed is the resale and rental market.

You cannot in this system rent such a game nor sell it as a 2nd hand game.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Gzus666 on 9/15/2008 8:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me the last time you have rented a PC game. Also, when was the last time you sold a PC game? I have done neither, not sure about you.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By xsilver on 9/16/2008 5:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
those two markets are huge and EA/game companies can cash in on it but instead jump on DRM and high game prices.

Scenario 1) high game prices, DRM up the wazoo, high piracy, many choosing to rent / buy used, few sales, medium profits

Scenario 2) cheap game prices, no one needs to pirate/ rent or buy second hand, high sales - medium profits AND GOOD PR!

Im surprised that they dont at least try one good game on this second scenario format - the last game to have come close to this was serious sam, but instead they need to do it to a more GA type game.

The reason why we dont see scenario 2 take place is if the game sucks then cheap prices will combine with low sales = lost $$. Well EA and the like should be concerned more about making good games then the $$.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By AnnihilatorX on 9/16/2008 6:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
Actually not many companies rent PC games here in the UK because of copy issues.

However there is a successful 2nd hand trading market here.
I have sold 10 or so PC games in the past year.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By AnnihilatorX on 9/16/2008 6:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually not many companies rent PC games here in the UK because of copy issues.

However there is a successful 2nd hand trading market here.
I have sold 10 or so PC games in the past year.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Ratinator on 9/15/2008 2:16:50 PM , Rating: 4
Now that would be an interesting stat to see. How much money is lost to piracy vs. how much money it cost EA to implement the DRM (testing, licensing, hardware, phone support....all things related have to be factored in).


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By JustTom on 9/15/2008 7:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
It would be interesting to see. However, no one would accept the numbers. EA would say they were too low, pirates and those who support them would say the numbers were too high.

EA must think they make more sales because of DRM than they lose. I am tempted to think they are right.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By neothe0ne on 9/15/2008 10:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
It would not be interesting because it would be impossible. Pirated downloads of games != a lost sale.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By JustTom on 9/15/2008 11:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
A study certainly could be done on how piracy affects software sales, it is hardly impossible. No matter how rigorous the methodoly no one would be happy. EA would claim every pirated copy was a lost sale; pirates would claim they were never going to buy the software in the first place. The truth would lay somewhere in the middle. Such a study would be incredibly difficult, expensive, and impractical but the results certainly would be interesting.

While each pirated copy does not equal a lost sale certainly some of them do. How many and to what extent DRM lessens piracy thus leading to increased sales compared with how many sales DRM causes to be lost would be very important to know. Especially to EA. I certainly would hope that their management is not instituting DRM just to piss of customers, that there is a certain belief that doing so causes increased profits.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By jtesoro on 9/16/2008 5:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure EA did their math here. How much they would gain vs. how much would lose. In their assessment, they think it is best for them to put in DRM. We may or may not agree. But it is their business, so it is their call. The market will reward or punish them, and they'll have to live with it one way or another.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By TSS on 9/15/2008 3:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
not to start a conspiracy theory or anything... but c'mon, you have to admit their helping piracy much more so then stopping it. and i can't imagine nobody ever checks a newssite at EA so they must know what their doing is doing everything but stopping piracy.

so what's their motive? are they looking for an excuse to go console only or something?


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By PWNettle on 9/15/2008 3:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm totally against piracy and I pay for my software. The DRM stuff drives me nuts because it does nothing to stop piracy. All it does is punish paying customers.

There are far better ways of dealing with the issue other than intrusive and customer unfriendly DRM.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By 9nails on 9/15/2008 4:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto here. I also am against Piracy and Pay for all my software. And I take issue to the fact that the legitimate software that I purchase treats me as the pirate by placing arbitrary restrictions on my use of the title. The majority of the time these restrictions are NOT presented at the time I purchase the title. Once I open the box and learn about the DRM restrictions, I'm forced to agree to them since I cannot return opened software to any retail chain outlet. This is unfair and drives me to download my own software titles through pirate channels so that I may recognise fair use.

I was really looking forward to purchasing Spore. However, all this DRM buzz has me turned off. There is a large market for me to spend money on, I think I'll go elsewhere with my dollars.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By omnicronx on 9/15/2008 4:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How much did this DRM cost EA to implement?

Probably much less than the 30 million less money they wouldnt have made, had it been pirated as many times as Crysis, which was about two legit users for everyone pirate.(and thats just via torrents)


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Keeir on 9/15/2008 5:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably much less than the 30 million less money they wouldnt have made, had it been pirated as many times as Crysis, which was about two legit users for everyone pirate.(and thats just via torrents)


Problem is, Spore has already been pirated more times than Crysis.

In fact, I could have obtained a pirated copy of Spore at no cost and without DRM BEFORE the offical street date of the title.

Way to go DRM!


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By omnicronx on 9/16/2008 7:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Problem is, Spore has already been pirated more times than Crysis.
As I have already explained, they only have more downloads. If you actually consider how many people bought the game (2 million Spore vs Crysis 1 million) and that 500k Spore downloads and 420k crysis downloads, Crysis is really a more pirated game with almost one third of Crysis copies being downloaded illegally. Spore is a more popular game, but you can't just merely compare the two directly without taking ratios into account.

So was the DRM successful? In my eyes yes, because a larger percentage of people legally bought the game.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By piroroadkill on 9/16/2008 10:16:22 AM , Rating: 2
They bought it because it was hyped and sought after for a long time


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Gzus666 on 9/16/2008 10:18:10 AM , Rating: 2
If you believe that, then I have a rock to sell you that keeps tigers away. I promise that as long as you wear it in the US, no tigers will attack you in your day to day life, excluding the zoo.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Gzus666 on 9/16/2008 11:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yea, almost forgot where that was from. Remember the Simpsons episode where the bear came into the city, and then everyone freaked out, and Homer said "we need to do something about all these bears". This then spawned The Bear Patrol, which was of course ridiculous, but Homer of course attributed the lack of bears to The Bear Patrol, when in fact, it was clearly cause bears coming into the city are very unlikely. In case you were wondering, you are Homer in this situation.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By omnicronx on 9/17/2008 9:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
You are just making yourself out to be an idiot. You can't prove your point so you bring up Simpsons quotes. Numbers don't lie, although obviously I can not prove that DRM stopped some piracy and resulted in more people buying spore with 100% accuracy, but I can make an educated guess based on the numbers. Now if you have a comparison between two recent best selling games in which one employed DRM and one did not, I am all ears, until then keep your stupid comments to yourself as you are the one making the baseless comments not me.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Gzus666 on 9/17/2008 10:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
Once again, how does not being able to install the game on more than 3 machines stop piracy, when the game was available for simple download for a week before it came out? You are making baseless claims, I have asked for proof. The fun part about debating is if you bring a point forward, it is your responsibility to prove said claim. So far, I have seen nothing but beating around the bush. I'm sure it hurts to see your baseless claim laid to waste by something as simple (and entertaining) as a Simpsons episode, but here we are. Numbers do lie, and are twisted in many ways to do so all the time.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By omnicronx on 9/17/2008 11:31:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once again, how does not being able to install the game on more than 3 machines stop piracy, when the game was available for simple download for a week before it came out?
I never claimed that the 3 time install limit would stop anything, but limiting your serial number to only one EA account does. And once again? Please show me where someone once asked me how the 3 machine rule would stop piracy, and where I was beating around the bush.

I have been supporting the right for a dev to employ DRM in general if they think it will help their bottom line, which in tern should help shift the balance of power back to PC games. Developing for PC and not porting from consoles will benefit everyone, from gameplay to advancement in graphics, PC development is crucial for not just the PC industry but the entire gaming industry. The best technologies have always tricked down from PC, it would be a shame to have that process come to a standstill because it is more profitable to sell games on hardware that is out of date compared to a PC in less than 2 years.

And what does the game being available early have to do with anything? A leak is a leak and has nothing to do with the DRM employed.

quote:
The fun part about debating is if you bring a point forward, it is your responsibility to prove said claim
I have.. many many times on this entire board in numerous places.
quote:
Numbers do lie, and are twisted in many ways to do so all the time.
Well unfortunately for you the world turns on the interpretation of numbers, obviously you don't agree with it, but it appears EA does, and they think they will make more money as a result.

As for my previous post, I should not have made it personal and attacked you, it just irritates me that people justify their actions of pirating a game because there is a hard install limit, without taking into account the effect that piracy has on the market, and how it will effect us all in the near future.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Gzus666 on 9/17/2008 11:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
Like I have said, anyone can download the game without issue, and has been since a week before they could even buy it. My point is not that is was a leak, but that it was free, and still is. Any moron can download the game for free, saving them $50 AND the hassle of dealing with install limits and game keys, sounds like a great reason to do it to me. Once again, I have paid for the game, I had my copy at 11:01 when I walked into Gamestop the Sunday it came out. I currently am having no trouble with playing it, but in a year, I have a feeling that will change. Chances are, I will either download the hacked copy, or use a crack if I find one so as not to have to deal with it. I paid for the game, screw them. You haven't proved anywhere that the DRM they used stopped piracy, and it would be lunacy to say it did, cause it clearly did not. EA also thinks that people shouldn't be angry about it, so is that true? Cause it appears the majority of people hate it, and this could cost them customers galore, is this good for business?

Last I checked, I can copy DVD movies all I want, and you can download them online with ease, yet they are still making money. People still go to the movie theater, people still buy copies of the movies, people still rent movies, people still stream movies from pay sites. The people who pirate don't usually plan on buying the product anyway, so it is a silly to try to claim that it will stop them.

People will always steal, there is always a group that will, and there is no getting around it. No matter how secure you try to make it, it will be stolen, that goes for any product. That is why you pay extra at any store for the padded price they put in for theft losses. Whether the theft goes down or not, you still pay for it, that is life, no matter how unfair it may seem.

EA is trying to stop people who would never have bought the game in the first place from taking their game? Doing this at the cost of customer convenience, and future playability? Warcraft III didn't have this crap, neither did Diablo 2, seems like Blizzard can release games that are hits without any of this crap, and do just fine, why does EA need this? They don't, EA is a worthless company, and I honestly have no pity on them for the loss of customers they will reap.

As for the personal attack, I really don't care that much on that front, and if the quote I used seemed like an attack on you, it was not meant that way. Merely an example.

As for the numbers, lets say 85% of people with cancer have had cheese within a year of when they got it, does that mean cheese causes cancer? If you look strictly at the numbers, there is a good chance, but if you take everything into account, no way, that would be just jumping to conclusions. This was just an example, and the numbers are not real. In that same way, you can't directly compare Crysis to Spore, as there are too many factors involved that won't allow a direct comparison.

Intentions are usually good, but not always as well thought out as we hoped. I love PC gaming, but this isn't the fix to get it back, it is companies like Blizzard that keep it going, we just need more like them, since they can only put out so many games.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By omnicronx on 9/17/2008 12:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously do not get what my argument is here.

Bottom line, Single player PC gaming is dying and this will effect every aspect of gaming. We used to be 10 years behind the movies in terms of graphical capabilities, and that number is slowly increasing as development shifts from the latest and greatest hardware, to a closed system setup in which the industry only has to react every 4 to 5 years when a new system comes out.

This is a step backwards, and will not help anyone. Sad part is, it is not like developers are struggling for cash, PC gaming consists of 15% of the market and sales only increase each year (and by a large amount). But because Developers are finding that they can make a lot more money in a system in which every owner needs to have his/her own copy of a game, it just does not make sense to invest more into the PC industry.

I am not really Pro-DRM, I am pro advancement in technology, I want to see real life images on the computer screen in 20 years. Unfortunately with the current conditions, it just does not look like this is going to happen. The result will be more and more people moving to consoles, as the main reason why I loved the PC as a child was because both the graphics and game play far surpassed that of a console.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By wempa on 9/17/2008 12:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of the people here are not against DRM .... just against overly restrictive DRM. I see no reason why they couldn't have adopted a better approach such as serial number + original CD in the drive.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Gzus666 on 9/17/2008 1:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, it seemed to work just fine.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Gzus666 on 9/17/2008 2:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
Then we agree on that, I would like great advances in computer gaming and for it to be around. The problem is, if we condone this crap they are doing, where clearly it doesn't help, they will just keep doing it. And honestly, who are we losing on the computer front? EA? Big friggin' deal, I am pretty much at the point where I won't buy a game they make or produce. They are greedy, and generally suck for the gaming industry. They have pulled down many a great developer. I don't see computer gaming dying like I see so many say, because Nvidia and ATI and maybe even Intel if their GPU dreams come true, all have a stake in computer gaming, and I am quite sure it makes them more money than supplying for the console market. Three giants, I doubt they will let that happen.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Proteusza on 9/15/2008 5:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Given the amount of people that have pirated it anyway (even before it was released!), and the amount that are avoiding it because of DRM, I find that hard to believe.

So wait..... you are saying that DRM, even needlessly restrictive methods like this, result in a net increase in sales? Really? People will buy it rather than face the wrath of the DRM? When they can just pirate it and avoid it all?


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By omnicronx on 9/16/2008 8:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People will buy it rather than face the wrath of the DRM? When they can just pirate it and avoid it all?
Most people don't care, you are really on your high horse if you think that DT users account for the general gaming population. Sure some people will be deterred, but in the end for EA, chances are that this DRM helped their sales, which regardless of your feelings of EA, they have spent years preparing for this game , which is not the norm for EA games.

I can't seem to wrap my head around why everyone thinks that the average persons biggest concern is DRM when buying a game. When I go to buy a game I care about one thing, going home and playing that game... not worrying about how many times I can install it.


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By Chocobollz on 9/24/2008 2:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
I've found this is funny:

quote:
I can't seem to wrap my head around why everyone thinks that the average persons biggest concern is DRM when buying a game.


The answer would be simple, because you already answer them yourself! See below..

quote:
When I go to buy a game I care about one thing, going home and playing that game...


That is exactly why people against DRM!! It is simply because those DRM is the one who wouldn't let you to just go home and play the game, because the DRM would require you to connect to the internet and activate the game. If the process goes fine, then you're lucky! And you must've realized that, that is the best case scenario, if you accidentaly get a problem with the authentication, then you're gonna get a headache, and all those headaches could be avoided with current common approach (using serial-number & CD).

quote:
not worrying about how many times I can install it.


I think, yeah, most peoples wouldn't think about how many times they could install it, but like I said before, things are sometimes went wrong, and when it gets wrong, I think most peoples wouldn't want to get more headaches. That's why most peoples went against DRM, simply because when things goes wrong, it'll give them more headaches than when they're using the common authentication approach (by using serial-number + CD).


RE: Do EA Execs know anything?
By kelmon on 9/17/2008 7:00:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And to state the quite obvious point, how many sales has EA lost because of it?


I can't say for certain but I can say that I am not buying the game because of this. I honestly don't mind having to have the CD in the drive, and I don't mind copy protection being employed, but I do get the hump with having to authenticate my purchase with a server. Perhaps SecuROM is better but I've had a couple of duff experiences with WGA in the past and I'm not going through that crap for a video game.


I know I'm in the minority here but...
By Crota on 9/15/2008 1:30:28 PM , Rating: 1
I do believe EA has a right to protect their IP and try to make a profit. Are there better ways to deter people that are as effective? Probably, but this is the best EA could come up with for now, otherwise they would have used the better plan. I am tired of people using DRM as a reason to justify why they will download and essentially steal. In my mind, its the same as trying to shop lift from your local super market just because they installed video cameras/alarms at the doors. I also think it is silly when people use the statement, "I wasn't going to buy the game anyways so they are not losing any money." As you steal only what you don't need/really want, but that is for another time/topic.

For all those who try out the game and then decide to buy it, you are few and far between and you make a good point that consumers should now have the ability to test out a game, perhaps in a limited fashion, before you buy it. The nice thing is, many producers do just that, with Spores Creature builder, Crysis' amazing level one demo, and all the open betas that you can use to test a game out, with limited content, before you decide to buy it.

EA spent a lot of time, energy and money to create what many to believe a great game. EA should be rewarded for that effort. This boils down to EA doing something that was "unpopular", but by no means wrong, and the gaming community claiming moral outrage and deciding to steal in reponse.




RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By AnnihilatorX on 9/15/2008 2:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
You are missing the point.

The point is DRM only serves to screw legitimate paying customers and absolutely nothing to stop pirates. See how the cracks of the game released before the game is shipped? See the record breaking piracy rate?

How is a problematic scheme that is not a solution, be used as a solution with undesirable side-effects?
It's like treating a disease with a drug that is known to not work, produce a serious headache to the patient (customer); and yet the doctor (EA) administer it.

The only productive thing this DRM has stopped is the 2nd hand game resale and rental business, in the cost of alienating millions of customers.


RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By Crota on 9/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By AnnihilatorX on 9/15/2008 3:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
Now I haven't got the game, so I am only making a guess on how much a customer has to put up with.

It already is screwing over legitimate customers. It is not just the 3 strike policy, but also the limit of only 1 account you can setup per serial number; meaning that you cannot share the game with your family member, or they have to use your account to play. Not only those, the fact that you have securom rootkits on your system is another pitfall.
There is no guarantee that the EA authentication server will be up and running for indefinite time in the future. It is entirely possible that maybe after 2-3 years you dig this game back up you bought ago and find that it doesn't work. This applies to old games that use old DRM protection methods that requires a specific OS to work.

EA is wrong morally because they are using a method that does not work to prevent piracy, while introducing unnecessary hassle to customers. My example there is valid because it depicts the fact that such a scheme does not work to stop piracy, but for some reason EA choose to use it. It is as if you try to hit your friend with a bat for no reason.

I understand very well where you are coming from. You have a fallacy in your example though, which is the main point I am trying to bring. Your law agency scenario is different because, by asking suspicious drivers to pull over to check for say alcohol level; you really do help in improving road safety. In this case however, EA's DRM scheme simply does not work in preventing piracy. You don't need a proof. Ok you can argue the record download is because of the hype of this game. Fair enough, but you can see, majority of the pirates have no problem in pirating the game.

Ok it hampers casual piracy but gain of sales from those are questionable. The loss of goodwill or public image however I think far outweighs any tangible benefits of a DRM scheme.

I am arguing in an objective point of me. This doesn't affect me at all. I do not have plan to buy the game, not because of the DRM but because of the gameplay. The DRM puts me off even further. This DRM fiasco looks to me EA is pulling out is a grand $50 rental scheme for a game named Spore.


RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By Crota on 9/15/2008 4:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'll try to wrap up my final thoughts and hopefully not argue to much and have everyone agree, some what.

Perhaps in 3 years, EA will remove the verification limitation to 3 installs and for those who dust off this "old" game will still have the ability to play it freely. I know that Blizzard recently removed the cd requirement for WC3 after the game was released for a number of years, no reason why EA couldn't do that. But this is a side note.

I think we all agree that EA has the right to protect their IP and software, no argument there.

I think we all agree that DRM and rootkit and everything else out there makes EAs bid at protecting their software is not the best solution yet.

I think we will all be happier if an effective anti pirating software solution is developed which would solve this problem, but we all know there is no such solution.

Until the perfect solution arises, all we can hope for is a better solution next time around. Did EA take a step in the wrong direction? Perhaps. Does it justify the illegal download and pirating of software. No. Just because you can understand why someone chooses to do somthing doesn't make the action okay.


RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By AnnihilatorX on 9/15/2008 4:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yep I agree 100% with what you said there.

Just the name of EA chills me that it's not going to do anything good for the customer :)

Ok I am getting a bit personal because how it killed the SimCity franchise with Societies.


By MonkeyPaw on 9/15/2008 10:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was hoping for SimCity5 to be an upgrade over the fantastic SC4. I just wanted widescreen support, multithread support (which I imagine would help performance considerably), and an updated graphics engine. Really, SC4 was awesome. I've played that game countless hours, even today.

Societies looks like a joke. While I haven't played it, everything I've seen about it (reviews, video demos, pictures) makes me cringe. It looks to me like they took away the realism and gave it a mythical WC3 look. They betrayed geekdom and destroyed a legacy. Maybe they'll make a SimCity6 title that's true to its roots...in 2015. :-|


RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By LumbergTech on 9/15/2008 2:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't entirely agree with your assessment, however, I will say you are somewhat right. Given that fact, lets take morality out of the equation for a minute.

It is quite clear that given current market conditions, their business plan is not a good one. People don't like the DRM. A very large number of them, clearly, won't put up with that type of DRM. They are shooting themselves in the foot by using such ridiculous methods. They are hurting their own bottom line. You can finger wag all you want, but it won't change other people's behavior. They might have been able to get another 100k sales(total guess, but I figure this could be possible, its mainly to make a point)
so you have $50 x 100,000 = $5000000 of potential revenue.

I wonder how much they spent on the DRM? I know that they are under this delusion that so much of their market is so dumb that they don't know how to use bittorent(or any number of downloading sites from the past present and future )and run a crack file. But this is becoming less and less true as time goes on. The DRM is easily defeated and the costs are passed on to the consumers. The only people that the DRM stops are the same people who couldn't even crack the simplest protection scheme that would require a much smaller investment , if any, on the part of EA.

In conclusion, EA is screwing itself. Want to be respected and have your software paid for? Reach out the community and quit treating legitimate customers like criminals.


RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By Crota on 9/15/2008 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
You are right, the DRM only stops the individuals who don't have basic computer knowledge and high speed internet connections.

That aside, why are we not angry against those who pirate software. I will make an assumption that I know is not entirely true for those who read this post, but I will assume that many of you buy your software from the store and have a licensed copy. Are we not suppose to be outraged at those who feel they can steal from us? We paid for the software, we paid for the development, we paid for the rights to use and enjoy it and some people with some computer know how decides to take what we rightfully paid for and say, "You can have it for free, we'll let other people pay for this great game."

I am upset at the hackers/crackers/torrent sites who in the end just steal money from me.

I find it funny that out of the comments I'm reading so far, the only group of people who have done something that we know is wrong, both ethically and lawfully defined as illegal, is the group of people no one is upset against.


RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By AnnihilatorX on 9/15/2008 4:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
Crota you do have an interesting point here.
I agree that we should be angry with the pirates. But to me both have a blame from very different angle.

Piracy, like most crimes, cannot be eradicated. No matter how much you despise it. No DRM scheme in the world can eradicate piracy. EA is to blame for not realising the harm it's doing to good paying customer and not realising the fact that DRM is useless at stopping pirates (Any software can be cracked, unless you involve hardware). There is also a hidden harm I have not mentioned in my other reply to you, which is by investing in DRM, you pass on the extra cost to the customer, which is of negative value (worst than no added value) to the customer. Also, helping companies like SecuRom to thrive.


RE: I know I'm in the minority here but...
By Crota on 9/15/2008 5:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for at least at seeing my point. Its refreshing to see more intelligent discussions these days on posts.

Anyways final thoughts.

Piracy will always be an issue and people will continue to fight against it. I don't want to get into a philosphical argument on whether it is better to do noting to stop it or implement a bad solution. I don't have the necessary skills for that task nor am I up to the challenge.

I just don't think its fair that so many people are passing such harsh judgement on EA for implementing a poor copy protection system when those same individuals all agree there is no perfect solution. Tell EA that this solution is not right and this solution is a bad one so that they don't use it again. What I don't want to see, but see happening in this situtation, are people who feel justified and vindicated in their choice to download and steal. "I'm not buying the software because I don't like how they implemented the copy protection." Piracy will always be an issue, but once people say it is alright to do so because "insert reason here" I just stop listening. If you want to steal and feel good doing it, go ask for someone else's opinion.


By AnnihilatorX on 9/15/2008 5:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
I bet doing nothing will be bitter to swallow by investors and shareholders, and that may be a good enough reason for them to do this.

I do believe however doing nothing at the moment until a better solution is found, is the better option morally. Financially or politically this perhaps is not.

As to reason people pirate, for a borderline person who is neutral between good and evil on this, give them a slight reason they will be likely to topple to one side. EA may be underestimating the financial effect of word of mouth, and reviews on internet.

Personally I would not like to increase EA's sales figure even by 1. I have not pirated the game because I don't want to either. But I can see how people would comfort themselves for their pirating act fully knowing that it's morally wrong. Not that I am supporting what they are doing, but most human beings are inherently greedy, any any slight justifiable reason would send someone committing wrong acts that benefits oneself.

In the end no matter how poor the game sales is, game companies tend to blame the piracy; never the game nor the DRM for some reasons. Is 500,000 a significant number compared to current sales?


By Staples on 9/15/2008 5:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think EA;s DRM on this game is excessive and unjustified

but I fully support DRM that requires you to put the disk in the drive and DRM that prevents you from copying the CD. A few years ago, this was the DRM and everyone complained (and of course used it as a justification to pirate software). I think gamers were just too damn whinny back then, now I think they have a legitimate reason to complain but that does not mean that a large percentage of these deadbeats are still using this DRM as an issue to justify piracy.


By AE3Wolfman on 9/19/2008 12:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm one of those that downloads to test it out. I don't bother with what are essentially demos, too many changes usually occur between its release and when the game goes gold.

I don't mind drm when its reasonable, but lets be real here. Did this online verification really stop any pirates for more time than it took to download a crack? EA could have saved themselves a bundle by just using a serial number/CD check. Not to mention EA has a horrible track record when it comes to maintaining verification servers.

I'm planning on getting this one, but I'll still use the crack to get around the drm so I can use it on my offline comp.


Complete lack of understanding?
By mm2587 on 9/15/2008 11:57:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
According to Electronic Arts own statistics, less than 25 percent have activated Spore on a second PC and less than one percent asked to activate on a third PC. As of September 12 -- when the Gamasutra article was written -- there were 453,048 activations of the Spore Creature Creator alone. 77 percent activated on only one machine, 23 percent activated more than one, and only 1 percent of users tried to activate on more than three machines.


Are they really that unintelligent? People aren't upset becuase they want to install it on 50 different machines. people are angry becuase when they get a new computer, or hard drive, reformat, etc they want to be able to install the game hassel free.

I know at one point when I was having some data corumption issues with my last build I wiped the machine 3 times in one month.




RE: Complete lack of understanding?
By mm2587 on 9/15/2008 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
hmm somehow I missed my own point that just becuase only 1 percent of users have tried to install spore more than 3 times in the first month of its release doesn't mean that number won't be significantly higher 6 months from now.


By wempa on 9/15/2008 12:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exac