At least is isn't StarForce.

Posted by PatMan33 at May 9, 2008 3:46 PM

It didn't seem that big of deal to me but with spore having to be online all the time anyway. I didn't know about the no disk thing, that's sweet.

Posted by ilikesanta at May 9, 2008 3:57 PM

Ironicly Securom is even getting more bashing than than starforce did receive in it's "glory time", when some people 's drives seemed to be disabled due to early drives and conflicting firmware that wasnt really ready for this they were right to be a bit disturbed, but I see the same thing repeating. All kinds of wild assumptions of hassle and panic football is being played now because everyone doesn't quite know what to expect. Sites giving miscommunication doesn't help because everyon jumps on the wrong bandwagon.

Posted by CosmicD at May 9, 2008 4:03 PM

Thank you very, very much. Anger at a form of DRM that could terminate the private use of a lawfully purchased piece of software should internet service or verification server fail, truly would have reduced such purchases to expensive rentals. That was the issue.

Nobody wants to pay full price to effectively 'rent' their software.

Many people like to be able to play their games years down the road, for nostalgia, because they loved them, or just to enjoy them again. Nobody wants their full-price game to become useless should EA arbitrarily decide that verifying it is no longer worthwhile. A similar issue recently happened to users of Microsoft's music service.

In short - if we buy something, we want to own it enough that we can use it indefinitely. We do not want to rent for full price, and depend on a being given permission every ten days to play our single-player game. Some of us go on trips, have poor internet connections, or simply find needing constant, nagging permission to use our own property deeply offensive.

So I thank you, your marketing division, and everyone else who came to reassure us all. This information truly shows us that Electronic Arts cares about its consumer base. We can now look forward once again to purchasing Spore, and any expansions that are released for it.

Posted by Jennifer Diane Reitz at May 9, 2008 4:19 PM

Truly, this brings joy to my heart and ease to my mind. This is the system that it should be. Authenticate only when using online content and upon initial install and leave the offliners alone. I have absolutely no problem supporting this system. I will definitely be getting Spore now and have no problem supporting EA products in the future so long as they dont take the crazy DRM schemes.

As for blizzards products, I dont play them anyway, so their DRM is of no concern to me. I hated SC and WoW is overhyped IMO. Never played Diablo and probably wont due to the ancientness of it.

Thank you so much for clarifying the DRM. I hope you understand that all of my posts were intended as a preemptive strike in case EA was actually considering using the 10 day reset. I just dont think a system like that is necessary or effective at what its meant to do. Spore will do outstanding without it!

Thanks again. I really am glad to hear that you guys are listening and care about what we (consumers) think and feel. I can once again look forward to Spore, CnC:RA3, CnC:Tiberium, Sims3, and a few other titles that caught my eye :)

Latah!

Posted by Verkinix at May 9, 2008 4:30 PM

The big deal about the online DRM is that we will be paying for the game, and the (rumored) form of the DRM was, as stated in an earlier reply, a form of post-purchase rental.

As laid out in caryl's note, it makes a lot more sense, and if it lets me play without the disc in the drive, so much the better!

Lastly:
"Oh yes, and if you think EA's DRM is harsh wait until you see the new DRM that Blizzard is working on for S2 and D3...."

If this is bull, it's a bad way to end an otherwise good post. If it's fact, let's see a link.

Posted by Steve (not Gaming Steve) at May 9, 2008 4:40 PM

Wait, what's that about Blizzard? Please don't tell me my favourite game developer is going to use some awful DRM-scheme...

I've bought every game since Warcraft 2 and love them all, but if they decide my own games will no longer be mine unless I pirate... Blizzard, anyone but you!

Posted by Sonny at May 9, 2008 4:45 PM

Steve, thank you very much for clearing up this issue. Game's gonna be great, and I still intend to buy it. Don't know why people wouldn't just because of an exaggerated report of DRM.

Posted by Gungnir at May 9, 2008 5:01 PM

Good, we don't need to have the disk inside to play. That's always a bonus.

Posted by Paroxysm at May 9, 2008 6:05 PM

Thank you very much.
Didn't notice this 'til LadyM posted it on the forum.
When I posted further questions (to nobody in particular), Caryl answered them!

:O

Thank you too, Caryl. It really does mean a lot.

*glares at EA*

Posted by Gauphastus at May 9, 2008 6:13 PM

The method for Spore's validation doesn't bother me, it's what they're using as DRM. SecuROM.

I'm sorry, but SecuROM's company, Sony DADC, has had 3 class action lawsuits filed against them, settled out of court with the Federal Trade Commission regarding rootkits in SecuROM. This was done in January of 2007, then SecuROM was at it again, installing rootkit software in August of 2007.

I love Maxis, I grew up with them, SimEarth, SimAnt, SimCity, The Sims, they essentially were an integral part of my childhood, it's sad to say the big hinderance for me, is SecuROM DRM.

Thanks but no thanks, I don't like being treated like a thief. SecuROM is essentialy the epitome of that.

Posted by Iron Raptor at May 9, 2008 7:27 PM

Don't worry, I'm ready to get outraged and red in the face about StarCraft 2's draconian garbage also. I am, however, intrigued with the implication there is ANY truth to D3 ever really getting made/realease.

Posted by Daniel at May 9, 2008 9:44 PM

@ Iron Raptor:

I think people like you make waaaaaaay too much of a big deal out of it. If you haven't been reading carefully, Maxis isn't using traditional SecuROM, but a modified version of it that doesn't use the 10-day periodic authentication. Small background checks are performed as you play online without it interrupting your game so you don't even notice it.

Posted by Gec at May 10, 2008 12:04 AM

"Oh yes, and if you think EA's DRM is harsh wait until you see the new DRM that Blizzard is working on for S2 and D3...."
So, it's ok for EA to deliver a game with some crappy DRM because someone else will deliver a game with even a crappier DRM... Just because someone else may deliver games with even crappier DRM that doesn't mean it's ok to deliver a game with crappy DRM. Sins of the Solar Empire did just GREAT without ANY DRM! How do you explain that?

Posted by Q at May 10, 2008 6:48 AM

"Sins of the Solar Empire did just GREAT without ANY DRM! How do you explain that?"

It did well because a) it was a good game that got a lot of great reviews, b) it had a great distribution deal and could be found at places like Walmart easily (a rare thing for PC games nowadays), c) finally what having no DRM have to do with the game doing well?

I have heard this argument many times, but it is a classically flawed argument. According to this argument Sins of the Solar Empire did well BECAUSE it had no DRM ... and no other reason. This is a classically flawed argument that people like Jack Thompson like to use when they make statements.

The two have nothing to do with one another, the correct statement is that Sins did well AND it had no DRM. There is no proof that having no DRM was the reason for Sins's success, and perhaps if it had strong DRM the game could have been even MORE successful as less people would have been able to easily download and play the game.

I can also say that I like to eat carrots and I bought Sins, hence people who like carrots bought Sins. It's the same argument -- you take two true statements and link them together presuming that two statements are responsible for each other's truth. Jack does this ALL the time and it's the same argument.

Once again, Sins did well AND it had no DRM. There is no direct evidence that having DRM was the sole item responsible for the success of Sins. Only that a game with no DRM COULD be successful. (also note that a game selling 300k like Sins would not be considered a success in the eyes of EA, anything less than a million would be a huge failure.)

Posted by Stephen Glicker at May 10, 2008 9:08 AM

There are plenty of games that have sold over a million copies with a DRM systems. C&C3, Bioshock, World in Conflict, Heroes of Might and Magic V, The Sims 2, etc. have all either sold a million copies or have are decently close to hitting that number.

DRM to me is what ppl use an an excuse to pirate. Most of the the time DRM systems are never noticable, however there are a few issues especially with things like Starforce. Overall DRM systems are there because they are protecting their property.

I think you would be a little paranoid if you and your team spent hundreds of thousands of man hours developing a game over the course of four years, only to have your hard work go to waste because little Timmy down the street would rather spend xyz since he knows he can get the game for free online.

It is an inconvenience that we have airport security because of a few rogue individuals out of billions of people decided to bomb us, it sucks at school when gangs wear there hate backwards and childs are no longer allowed to do the same... bottom line people, it reality deal with it. The actions of others are going to influence what we do and do not do. So next time you friend decides to pirate a game, maybe...just maybe you should try and convince him to actually spend his money on it.

Posted by Lurker at May 10, 2008 1:08 PM

I just want to comment on what Steve and Lurker were pointing out.

'Games did well inspite of having security or not...'
This is somewhat true, but if you know the community of stardocks products, you also know that they are a nitch group for a nitch type of game. They support stardock because of their business practices. I've purchased several products myself simply on merit to support the company inspite of having no interest in the product itself. Would I do the same for EA? Nope.

I have no problem with companies protecting their products. But it comes down to, 'do I really want my system infringed upon to the degree the rumor was suggesting?' The answer was No. And had Maxis come out and said that was the way it was, I would have said, the game, as fantastic as it is, isnt worth the security hassles and I will no longer be purchasing EA products in general (long history of mediocre EA games, almost not worth the price or security measures). It is a GAME afterall.

Further, the fact that it is for a general market rather then a nitch market, the majority of users dont have the expertise or know how to crack or pirate the game. This is the difference between EA's success and Stardocks success views. Most of stardocks' game users have some idea of cracking or obtaining pirated copies of a game. EA's products are geared to the masses. So 300k copies sold would be successful to a company production 1/20th the size of EA's. And therefore, EA's idea of success would be far greater. But the difference in market size is due to the "casual" players. And that is what EA is geared toward. The people who cant/wont crack the game anyway. Whether it be a simple NOCD exe or a login every 10 seconds until the end of eternity or until they are tired of being controlled by the parent company.

But I've gotten away from my point. Most games dont do well because of or inspite of security. Pirates will pirate, would-be pirates would be more likely to not deal with security and just find an easily obtainable copy. Would-be customers will typically be turned off by intrusive security measures and therefore just not buy the product (I fall into this group). And the vast majority will buy the game either way. So I dont see the point of restricting security measures.

On a side note, Oblivion for PC had a basic CD check and sold significant amounts of copies. It was one of my deciding factors to purchase it upon release (I also purchased Sins of a Solar Empire upon release to support Stardock and was happy when the product was premium quality; but how can you go wrong with stardock products?!). If the game is good, people will diverge from stealing it to buying it. The 1% of true pirates out there should not be the most significant factor in security decisions because they are either going to obtain the product illegally either way or they will just not play it. There is no real gain in revenues by adding harsh security.

(Further, I am all about companies protecting their assets. But dont do it at the expense of the customer. I dont know anyone who wants to be implicated as being a criminal directly.)

I, personally, want to see more business practices like Stardock (and to a lesser extent Steam). Be able to buy a game, add it to my account, not have to worry about using a disk in the drive anymore, and be treated like a worthy customer. An example of this is the fact that GalCiv2's latest expansion came out last week and is simply wonderful. There are a few things that need fixing, but SD rep came right out and said, here is the plan for the next 5-6 months. Two Major patches that add an amazing amount of stuff to the game at no further cost. I think to myself, maybe I'll buy a second copy just to support these guys. I dunno, I like to think that others think that way too. Support those who support us.

And to all, I say, Stop Pirating if you do. It's just senseless. If you try the game, you like it, support it! If you like the company that makes it, support them! Lets get more quality ports on the PC and enjoy them for years to come. The quality of future products can only go up if we support the good ones and let the bad ones die off. Lets encourage companies to want to spend more time and resources on the game itself and less time on setting up security that will be broken anyway.

Latah!

Posted by Verkinix at May 10, 2008 2:42 PM

Won't Blizzard use Steam since Valve is part of the same collective now?

Posted by Aybraus at May 10, 2008 5:32 PM

i, much like verkinix, fall into the "would-be customers will typically be turned off by intrusive security measures and therefore just not buy the product." if i find that a piece of software will infringe on my experience beyond the use of that software, then why support it?

i am a person who has never bought from starbucks or walmart because i don't support practices those companies are involved in; chinese sweat-shop outsourcing, canabalistic growth, and the clear destruction of community.
i have stopped purchasing from corporations like mcdonalds and coca-cola, who fully support the "high fructose corn syrup and other corn derived products" empire. i feel that these only support the fuel economy that's clearly affecting our way of life.

which leads me to a new dilemma. i know my computer pumps out horrid heavy metals and chemicals. that's why i have my spider plants growing near the machine to absorb and filter most of those. they seem to enjoy it too, they are growing briskly. but i am growing more and more away from the constant use of my pc.

sure, i love the internet and games as much as anyone else does. but i also love gardening, cooking, hanging out with friends, and enjoying the real world too. games, more and more, seem like a luxury i can't afford. i don't know if anyone else is going through with this, but i know i am.

where does this lead? i only am willing to spend money on products that i feel are worth spending on. i love what the spore team has created (even though i've not yet played it) and i will assuredly purchase this product. but i also know that my money tells them that choices they made were ok with me. much like if i bought that starbucks latte they'd feel i'm ok with their expansionist growth. so buying a game that has a DRM associated with it is basically me telling the manufacturer that i'm ok with that. i'm not though. i don't like the idea of a DRM associated with any software, to me it's a message that the manufacturers don't trust their community.

i don't know too much of software design, but i can't imagine that we don't have an alternative technology that would let us play games on our pc without loading the physical disk onto the drive. so i don't see how a DRM is needed to do this.

and what exactly does authentication of the game i purchased do for me? sure, it tells the manufacturer that the deal is legit, but what benefit am i assured? will the servers always be up if we're all authenticated? can i get authentication from the company on my product? if not, why doesn't this go both ways?

basically, we are consumers, and it seems the only way our voice can be heard is by directly affecting the economy. sure, they read what we have to say on forums and the like, that's great. but they haven't done much to assuage my worries. don't get me wrong, this info is nice to have, but when we let one path open, it only opens more. hence i like open source. but that's my other problem, i use ubuntu, and i loathe the idea of dual boxing my system just to play these great games. oh well, i guess someone has to feed the monkey.

realize that not everything is black and white, and not everyone feels comfortable with what you feel is comfortable. this message is more for people in the organizations that do read these boards. maybe they can get a sense of what one of their future consumers is like, and why they might stop being a future consumer.

and gamingsteve, that ending wasn't cool. please keep the fluff to a minimum unless you are going to back it up with concrete info. i liked your post years ago about D3, we haven't heard anything about it sense. and i know blizzard is all hush hush about projects, but what fun is that if the rumor mill isn't working. do they not know how hype works? look at what your site alone did for spore. tell blizz what it could do for D3, not like their community wouldn't be rabid about it anyway, i wish i could accurately tell them why i stopped playing WoW, and why i won't go back. glad to see a post from you though!

Posted by nicesocks at May 10, 2008 10:27 PM

@Gec.

A modified version of SecuROM is STILL SecuROM. Clearly you have forgotten the rootkit dilemma that got the Federal Trade Commission involved.

Here's my issue with SecuROM, it's not made by Maxis, or E.A., it's licensed by Sony DADC to E.A. to protect their games. So then I have to blindly believe on E.A.'s word that SecuROM won't install a rootkit or null bytes in my registry.

I know how Spore's going to behave, it's a game. SecuROM, I do not. I can swallow registering once online, and re-validation in order to download content / patches / updates. That I can deal with, however I will NOT have SecuROM on my system, which has a proven track record of failure. Don't believe me? Google SecuROM and you'll see.

SecuROM is saying "I think you're a dirty dirty thief, so I'm going to keep watching you." Sorry, but I don't pay people to treat me like crap, that's what taxes and dominatrixes are for.

Posted by Iron Raptor at May 11, 2008 2:42 AM

Is "install and play on multiple computers" still 3? before you have to phone customer services and ask politely if they can activate the game you paid for?

Posted by swerv at May 11, 2008 2:48 AM

"I have heard this argument many times, but it is a classically flawed argument. According to this argument Sins of the Solar Empire did well BECAUSE it had no DRM ... and no other reason"
Except that I did NOT say that it did well BECAUSE it has no DRM! My point was exactly that it did well AND it has no DRM. This is a counterexample of that DRM is not needed for a good game to do well.

Posted by Q at May 11, 2008 5:59 AM

I meant to say: "This is a counterexample of that DRM is needed for a good game to do well."

Posted by Q at May 11, 2008 6:01 AM

I'm glad they backed down on this. I wouldn't buy ME if they released it with that crap. Having to continually validate a singleplayer game online in order to run it is offensive. All this DRM _ONLY_ hurts the people who actually pay for the games. It's a fundamentally flawed thing to do

And I hope to god that D3's DRM isn't this intrusive. I'll be playing that online anyway

Posted by teo at May 11, 2008 9:45 AM

People are still going to pirate it despite this new fancy-pants DRM scheme...

The question is, will EA get more sales with DRM or without it?

(Whether or not there is more piracy is irrelevant, what matters is sales!)

Obviously EA thinks that adding DRM will increase their sales numbers (otherwise they wouldn't use it). This is only a guess though, not a factual truth...

Unfortunately, no publisher is willing to do a controlled trial to see if DRM actually increases sales or not, so for the time being DRM is just corporate snake-oil... EA's CEO may as well go and get a new-age magnetic hot-stone energy massage palm-reading session and hope that it will increase sales!

Posted by Asdf at May 11, 2008 9:51 PM

I have no problem with online verification, in fact it's far preferable to me than any other but Stardock's system. Company of Heroes has a similar verification process.

I did have a problem with Securom (sp?) because of a history of games not working because of it. I've had to crack legally purchased games before because I couldn't play any other way. (Or, in one case, had to reboot before every play.) I don't want to do that with Spore, the online part of the game is key, to me, to what I'll enjoy about it. Thankfully, that won't be an issue since we'll be able to play without the CD. I hope Sims 3 uses this same system.

Posted by Fobok at May 13, 2008 10:38 AM

I have to say I agree with Q on this front. The typical view among publishers seems to be that if they release without DRM, the pirates will eat all their sales. A valid worry, one might well think, but the relative success of games released without DRM (such as SoaSE, everyone's favourite example) shows that this is not so.

The pirates will always find a way around copy protection. The more draconian DRMs simply drive legitimate consumers into their arms.

Posted by Biscuitry at May 15, 2008 6:59 AM

Please keep your comments relevant to this entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.

Your name (required):


Your email address (required, will not be shown to the public):


Your site's URL (optional):


Do you want us to remember your information for next time?
YesNo

Your comments: