EA Patches Spore, Eases DRM [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

EA has released the first patch for Spore, the purpose of which is to fix a number of bugs and tweak some gameplay settings to be more entertaining. Some of the visual effects were upgraded as well. They've also officially responded to the complaints about Spore's DRM, stating their intention to increase the number of allowed installations to five and to set up a system to "de-authorize" systems in order to reclaim the installation credit. They plan to allow multiple screen names per account, which was an issue for many families trying to play the game. This comes not long after EA made similar changes to the DRM of upcoming RTS Red Alert 3, and after Spore's DRM protest spread to in-game creature designs. Reader SoopahMan notes that users in EA's Spore tech support forum are reporting a number of new issues caused by the patch.http://games.slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?from=rss&op=image&style=h0&sid=08/09/20/0451237 (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/20/0451237&from=rss)
Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/20/0451237&from=rss) at Slashdot.
http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/uZwRgJ310XK9xnIILV0YxcOqy98/i</img> (http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/uZwRgJ310XK9xnIILV0YxcOqy98/a)
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/6Fd4bxh8Rkk

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/6Fd4bxh8Rkk/article.pl)

[GrandAmChandler]

Still not enough. No DRM or No Deal.

[smork]

Reminds me again why I buy console games. Put it in it works. Lend it to a friend, it works there. Sell it, it works for the buyer.

[chicnstu]

Still not enough. No DRM or No Deal.

What if they patched it to allow you 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 installations?

[Garry Silljo]

What if they patched it to allow you 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 installations?

Then I can't have it on my 43,252,003,274,489,856,001'st machine. Unacceptable.

[Starwander]

I think that a perfect example of the ridiculousness of DMR is Sins for the Solar Empire. It is selling like a banshee, yet it doesn’t have any copy write protection. Honestly in today’s society there is always going to be a group of people that buys the game and a group that steals the game. No amount of copy protection is going to change this.

[Clownzilla]

I think that a perfect example of the ridiculousness of DMR is Sins for the Solar Empire. It is selling like a banshee, yet it doesn’t have any copy write protection. Honestly in today’s society there is always going to be a group of people that buys the game and a group that steals the game. No amount of copy protection is going to change this.

It also shows that when a software developer respects their customers then the customers will return the favor.

[InsaneDavid]

Reminds me again why I buy console games. Put it in it works. Lend it to a friend, it works there. Sell it, it works for the buyer.

Unless it's Phantasy Star Online.

[Cornelius]

Unless it's Phantasy Star Online.

or FFXI

[Starwander]

It also shows that when a software developer respects their customers then the customers will return the favor.

Exactly

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm not so sure it's that simple. Look at the Dreamcast. Basic copy protections and the like are not a bad idea if you're a software publisher. The problem isn't the anti-piracy sentiment of publishers. The problem is specifically with DRM as a method of anti-piracy. It punishes people who pay for the product in a way that is notably more intrusive than any other method.

[Berserker]

I'm not so sure it's that simple. Look at the Dreamcast. Basic copy protections and the like are not a bad idea if you're a software publisher. The problem isn't the anti-piracy sentiment of publishers. The problem is specifically with DRM as a method of anti-piracy. It punishes people who pay for the product in a way that is notably more intrusive than any other method.

Well, the problem is that software publishers still believe that there must be some way to make people stop stealing software without going after people who are stealing software, or more specifically people who are distributing stolen software. That there must be something that they can do from their end, that's sort of passive and non-confrontational, that will deter people from just going to a distributor of stolen software and just downloading for free a version of that software that has the deterrents removed.

Of course when you look at it in those terms, it's fairly obvious why it doesn't work. It's like putting a better lock on your brand of cookie jars specifically to deter kids from swiping a cookie jar with the locks already removed. And it's this kind of irrational thinking that's given rise to all of these irrational concepts, such as DRM, "You don't own this disc you just bought and paid for, we do, so obey how we tell you to use it or even if you can use it. So basically shut up and accept it, and don't download an unlimited version for free."

[TonyTheTiger]

I get what you're saying but I'm not sure that the whole "trust the customers and they'll pay for what you're selling" proposition holds a whole lot of water. Sega having ass protection on the Dreamcast didn't make people go, "Wow, let's buy all the games." It made them go, "Wow, where can I get one of those boot discs?"

Things like copy protections do work at some level. It does prevent Joe Shmoe from going to Blockbuster, renting Halo 3, sticking it in his computer, and copying it to a DVD-R. It doesn't stop people who have the will to actually take the extra couple of steps to make it happen. But then again, neither does DRM. So what you've got are two protections, both probably accomplishing the same thing (stopping piracy at the most bottom line level), except one is infinitely more annoying to your actual customers and even goes so far as to encourage your actual customers to go look for cracks. So, again, the problem is with DRM specifically. There weren't massive assaults on Amazon.com from people annoyed with copy protection.

[otoko]

As if it wasn't enough that there was three different versions of the damn thing...

[FlufflePuff]

Not really concerned about the DRM thing. I just want them to patch it so it is fun to play. :(

[8bitCaged]

I don't see what the problem is, buy the game put it on your shelf get the game from pirate bay. That what I did. :angel:

"But that's illegal." No Judge is going to charge you for stealing a game you own

[Berserker]

I get what you're saying but I'm not sure that the whole "trust the customers and they'll pay for what you're selling" proposition holds a whole lot of water. Sega having ass protection on the Dreamcast didn't make people go, "Wow, let's buy all the games." It made them go, "Wow, where can I get one of those boot discs?"

Things like copy protections do work at some level. It does prevent Joe Shmoe from going to Blockbuster, renting Halo 3, sticking it in his computer, and copying it to a DVD-R. It doesn't stop people who have the will to actually take the extra couple of steps to make it happen. But then again, neither does DRM. So what you've got are two protections, both probably accomplishing the same thing (stopping piracy at the most bottom line level), except one is infinitely more annoying to your actual customers and even goes so far as to encourage your actual customers to go look for cracks. So, again, the problem is with DRM specifically. There weren't massive assaults on Amazon.com from people annoyed with copy protection.

Dismissing the rhetoric, which is pretty much what "Digital Rights Management" is; very passive-sounding and vague, a sort of invented buzz-term. If you move past that and look at what the actual issue is, which is that basically people don't like to be told how or even if they can use something they own, apart from some obvious, immediate safety hazard.

Copy protection is somewhat unique to the digital realm, in that the majority of people seem to accept it as reasonable. It's been employed for decades, with varying forms of verification and intrusiveness, especially in regard to computer games, "Read the second word of the third paragraph on page 23 of your game manuel" and so on, but most people accept it as a sort of necessary annoyance given the unique nature of software, and play ball.

As you know DRM grossly exploits this single point of implicit trust, and when most people find out what it actually means, it's immediately obvious that it's not a good thing. What I find interesting is that it's even considered worthy of debate, after years of conditioning and pushing it up the front line of course, but maybe that's something that could also only be allowed to come about in the digital, non-physical realm. Outside of that, in the physical world, it's not even open for debate, you'd just be laughed out of the building. Just about any situation you could think of applying it to sounds completely absurd. "Buy a bag of chips, but before you can open it you have to agree to and sign this contract detailing the terms of our 'Physical Rights Management', all for security reasons of course, that says you can open the bag 3 times but after that you have to contact us, or buy another bag if you want more chips. If you complain enough, maybe we'll let you open the bag 5 times instead of 3", and so on.

It doesn't matter what their reasoning given is for limiting how you open your bag of chips, or plug in your toaster or whatever. People are stealing lots of chips, shouldn't really matter to us. As a company it's your problem, you should deal with it, and we should be able to do whatever we want to with things we own. You made them, but now we own them. It's an implicit distinction you don't even think about. But this is software, so you should care about the companies' problems, and in fact be punished for them, regardless of whether or not you had anything to do with them, and be subservient to their will as to how to use their products. That's the difference that's expected.

Not a very strong outlook for the future success of PC-exclusive gaming right now, or even a future existence, at least in the commercial A-list sector. Aside from grinding monthly-subscription MMORPGs perhaps.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think we're in a bit of a transitional period. Years back you could steal PC games fairly easily but it was a sort of one off loss for the company. Most people had to acquire a hard copy of the game first and then duplicate it. The infrastructure to transfer even a few megabytes over the internet on a wide scale wasn't there let alone the few hundred that could be stored on CDs. It hasn't been that long since p2p, newsgroups, and the like started to take off and bandwidth increased enough to allow gigs worth of data to move in very little time. I don't know if I'd say these developers and publishers were blindsided but there certainly was a ticking clock that just about hit 0. So from that angle I do sympathize with these companies that have the threat of massive revenue loss hanging over their heads.

That being said, DRM is really the result of pure panic. It's like when a kid is playing ball in the house and accidentally breaks a vase. He knew that something might go wrong down the line but didn't prepare for it. Now that time has come and the only thing he can come up with is to blame it on somebody else. It's not a very elegant solution and it's one that will end up getting kicked in the ass fairly soon.

[skaar]

Actually I'd say we're more in some kind of loop. I remember we used to be unable to duplicate PC games as they'd deliberately put bad data/blocks on the disks. This of course spawned some programs like Copywrite and the like that allowed you to duplicate these "key disks" and copy PC games.

Then we had the code wheel/charts period. They'd show a key on the screeen and you'd have to look through a piece of paper (that was usually purple with dark purple writing) or spin a code wheel or get something from the manual to enter or continue the game. I have a box FULL of little wheels/sheets and manuals from this era.

Then they released on CDRom... at that point few people had CD writers (I think I paid near a thousand bucks for mine) so there was little protection - the blanks were too expensive.

After awhile you had key codes/serial numbers in the boxes or on the disks... again not a big deal if you wrote it down.

Internet activation became a requirement a few years back - that's been the most annoying one. I go between so many computers and laptops that I've given up on PC games entirely. I used to be able to drag a save file or two around but now it's become such a hassle I never bother. Civ 4 was probably the last game I put any time into and I still have it installed on my main work laptop.

There have been some innovations - this Steam thing actually seems to have the right idea. I bought Portal on there for $10 a few weekends ago and have been moving that around to great success. Then again, I haven't had to really try to do anything TOO fancy with it.

Ramble ramble.

[Clownzilla]

I would be interested to see a game developer develop a game in this current market with ABSOLUTELY no copyright protection and then see their sells (more importantly profit) figures. I am pretty confident that if the developer puts enough value into the game (outstanding package bonuses, outstanding support, outstanding community interaction structure, etc.) that they will make a great amount of $$$. Game developers need to climb down from their ivory towers and realize that the gamers are the only reason why their companies exist. These same gamers will be the very people that will slam the final nail in these companies' coffins if they are not given the respect they deserve. The bottom line is that the majority of gamers (hardcore or casual) will find it hard to steal from a company that they truly respect and the companies that realize this will thrive for decades to come.

[Cryomancer]

I would be interested to see a game developer develop a game in this current market with ABSOLUTELY no copyright protection and then see their sells (more importantly profit) figures. I am pretty confident that if the developer puts enough value into the game (outstanding package bonuses, outstanding support, outstanding community interaction structure, etc.) that they will make a great amount of $$$. Game developers need to climb down from their ivory towers and realize that the gamers are the only reason why their companies exist. These same gamers will be the very people that will slam the final nail in these companies' coffins if they are not given the respect they deserve. The bottom line is that the majority of gamers (hardcore or casual) will find it hard to steal from a company that they truly respect and the companies that realize this will thrive for decades to come.

Running with Scissors does this. All of their self-published versions of postal/postal2 have no copy protection, so I hear. They had starforce on the postal 2 expansion, because the publisher demanded it. All re-releases since have not. They also offer download purchasing (have for YEARS now, before it was very popular) so people living in countries that have banned the games can still purchase them.

edit: I think D3 doesn't do much copy protection either, as the PC version of Puzzle Quest doesn't seem to have any.

[TonyTheTiger]

I would be interested to see a game developer develop a game in this current market with ABSOLUTELY no copyright protection and then see their sells (more importantly profit) figures. I am pretty confident that if the developer puts enough value into the game (outstanding package bonuses, outstanding support, outstanding community interaction structure, etc.) that they will make a great amount of $$$.

I'd bet money that it would be lower than normal or at least lower than it could have been. If you're talking a deluxe package ala something Working Designs would produce then I'm sure that would help convince people to buy the thing but in the long run if people can rent a game from Blockbuster and can burn a DVD-R that plays without any other modifications (mod chips and all that) I'm certain that there will be some noticeable financial sacrifice. Again, the Dreamcast. Besides, a deluxe package is something that shouldn't really be expected, especially from smaller publishers. And even outstanding support doesn't really affect most people. How often do you call those phone numbers listed in game manuals? I don't think I'd ever taken that into account when deciding what game to buy.


Game developers need to climb down from their ivory towers and realize that the gamers are the only reason why their companies exist. These same gamers will be the very people that will slam the final nail in these companies' coffins if they are not given the respect they deserve. The bottom line is that the majority of gamers (hardcore or casual) will find it hard to steal from a company that they truly respect and the companies that realize this will thrive for decades to come.

I think you're pushing a little too hard. Just because Sears has those theft warning devices it doesn't mean they're disrespecting their customers. It's CYA from their perspective. And nobody finds it hard to steal when they can do it privately in their own home. That's why digital media is such a hot button issue. Personal ethics sway a bit with this. You can at least come up with a handful of reasons why many people don't rob retail stores. With digital media there are fewer deterrents. Respect for the company (which is probably the exception rather than the rule) and a desire to have a real copy are about it.

This reminds me of Stephen King. Not too long ago he tried to circumnavigate the need for book publishers by offering a book exclusively for download. It was an honor system. You download the book and mail him a dollar. Needless to say this failed miserably much to King's chagrin and to his traditional publisher's delight.

[Clownzilla]

Customers will not continue to purchase games at increasingly premium prices while having an increasingly harder time to play them. Seriously, this is just fueling the piracy of games. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong, the fact is that people are pirating games at a breakneck pace. Rather than the companies crying about the evil that pirates do while raising prices and increasing DRM measures (a losing battle for companies), they need to concentrate on how to convince these people not to pirate or worse off to enter the world of piracy. Listen, I'm not for piracy and respect the right of a business to make $$$ but if these companies want to survive then they have to approach it the right way