EA Loosens Spore, Mass Effect DRM

An anonymous reader writes "In response to recent criticism, EA has decided to eliminate the periodic validation of Mass Effect and Spore. 'Specifically, EA's plan to dial in to game owner's computers every ten days to check whether they were running a legitimate version of their software has been scrapped, ShackNews reports. EA had planned to use the validation method for upcoming titles Mass Effect and Spore. EA now says that validation will now only occur when a user attempts to download new content for either game. Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces, who pointed out that they could not rely on having an internet connection every ten days.'"

Sudden outbreak...

[thealsir (927362)]

of common sense?

Re:Sudden outbreak...

[DittoBox (978894)]

Something like that, sure.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/5/9/ [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Sudden outbreak...

[Skylinux (942824)]

Nice, if I had a mod points I would give one to you. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/5/9/ [penny-arcade.com] is very funny ... still laughing

The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game

How is this better then constant validation? So if I install it on my Desktop, Laptop and maybe at work ... I would only play it on one computer at a time.
Now if one of the machines crashes, I am thinking about my Gaming (win XP) Desktop here, it has become unstable and needs a reload soon .... I would have to beg to get one more install.... keep your game!

Re:Sudden outbreak...

[Doppleganger (66109)]

The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game

This is exactly why I'm not going to buy the PC version of Mass Effect right away, even though I was previously thinking of getting it as soon as it came out. I'll be holding out until my future use of the game is no longer dependent on the whims of EA/Bioware. Whether that is due to an official patch or piracy, I really don't care.

I have tons of games that came from companies that are no longer around, or companies that have completely changed since those games came out. I've reinstalled my OS or upgraded my computer countless times since those games came out. They still work fine for me, and I don't have to jump through hoops every time I need to reinstall the software I paid money for.

I seriously doubt EA/Bioware will be quick to release a patch to fix this once the game is out. So, even though I fully intend to buy the game, I'm stuck with cheering for the pirates.

Re:Sudden outbreak...

[ShadowsHawk (916454)]

I've already installed Bioshock twice due to a hard drive failure. Why should I have to call up a company after a certain number of installs to request permission to install a game that I've already purchased? Fuck that. I did legally purchase Bioshock, but I also have a pirate version just in case something were to happen. I will not patronize any further attempts to limit how often I can use the software that I paid for.

Re:

[Barny (103770)]

Yeah, are we sure this is:

a. EA
b. Worded correctly

Just doesn't sound like EA....

I'm scared ;(

Re:Sudden outbreak...

[ppanon (16583)]

They said that one of the primary objections were from soldiers. I think looking unpatriotic/unAmerican/unSupportTheTroops would be very bad for business.
Maybe another factor was the realization that a large number of soldiers are coming home from Iraq with PTSD and good weapons handling skills and that it could be bad for more than business.

Re:Sudden outbreak...

[chris_mahan (256577)]

(Apologies in advance to those this may offend.)

A new psychological condition is predicted to appear among service men and women serving in combat in Iraq: PEASD (Post-Electronic-Arts-Stress-Disorder).

Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really

[arthurpaliden (939626)]

No, more like reacting to bad publicity. Sort of like what our elected officials do. Float a trial balloon and then act according to the poll results.

Re:

[palegray.net (1195047)]

I don't know what the GP does for a living, but I'm active duty Navy in the submarine force. We go underwater in a nice enclosed space for months at a time, away and largely out of contact with our families (I'm married), something you might consider a bit on the arduous side compared to most civilian employment.

I also know a lot of people from other service branches, from various backgrounds with varying perspectives on the war. Of course most of those soliders would "rather be home with their families"

Re:

[Gordonjcp (186804)]

most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job

That's what Eichmann [wikipedia.org] said, too.

Eh, let's get one thing straight

[Moraelin (679338)]

Eh, let's get one thing straight about Eichmann, since his name pops up in a lot of talks about what people do when ordered, including the "yot too are no better than Eichmann" Milgram bullshit spin.

From the same Wikipedia page:

By 1945, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler had ordered Jewish extermination halted and evidence of the Final Solution destroyed. Eichmann was appalled by Himmler's turnabout, and continued his work in Hungary against official orders. Eichmann was also working to avoid being called up in the last ditch German military effort, since a year before he had been commissioned as a Reserve Untersturmführer in the Waffen-SS and was now being ordered to active combat duty.

Eichmann actively disobeyed direct orders, and kept hunting Jews after he was explicitly ordered to stop. He kept rounding them up and sending them to some camps which were being dismantled or didn't exist any more, and generally didn't want the fruit of his work any more.

Refusing to show up when called to his division to go to the front, actually makes him a deserter too.

He pretended to have an official job that he didn't actually have any more, and commandeered troops and resources that just weren't his any more. Just because he wanted to hunt more Jews. And obviously he wasn't too afraid of the consequences for _that_.

He was _appalled_ at the decision to stop exterminating Jews.

So let's put to rest the idea that he was just following orders, like everyone else. That guy didn't just continue his work when no longer asked to, he actually continued it _againt_ direct orders to stop. He also had no trouble deserting when he no longer liked the orders he was given. So, you know, why didn't he do it before, then?

There's a _world_ of difference between (A) doing what you're ordered and coaxed, like in Milgram's experiment, or out of fear of a court-martial, like many soldiers do, and (B) what Adolf Eichmann did. Past a point, he actually acted against the orders and laws, and was no more than a common (mass) murderer.

Off Topic: military in Iraq

[TeXMaster (593524)]

The US soldiers are only dealing with the shit job they were assigned, nothing more, nothing less. Most would rather be home with their families, not sent into a hostile environment to further our Gov't.'s goals.

It is a fact that they are there, and if you would talk to some of them, you would understand that most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job, and some of it is appreciated by the Iraq people. (not all, but some)

It is a fact that they are there, and if you would talk to some of them, you would understand that most do not want to be there, but they are doing their job, and some of it is appreciated by the Iraq people. (not all, but some)

A solider can refuse to go to combat. It's called desertion and punished by military law, and it takes much more courage than just obeying order, but it shows consistency in hir ethics, assuming (s)he refuses to serve because (s)he disagree with the motives of the war and not just because to chicken out of danger.

"Obeying orders" is never a valid excuse for doing something unethical or illegal. It doesn't relieve the wrongdoer of responsibility.

BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Is your job totally without fault or negative repercussions for the whole world? Do you live in a glass house without fear of thrown rocks?

I'm not the OP and FWIW: I'm a mathematician and I worked in my last two years for a company that produces prostheses. My work for the next couple of years will be used to predict eruptions and reduce their threat. Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the message.

Re:Sudden outbreak...

[rob1980 (941751)]

- Announce heavy-handed DRM
- "Listen" to backlash from fans
- Announce less heavy-handed DRM
- Pat yourself on the back when the fans lavish praise on you, knowing you still got your foot in the door anyway

Sudden outbreak of common sense, my foot!

Re:Sudden outbreak...

[chrisb33 (964639)]

I was thinking the same thing - could they really have been serious about the 10-day DRM? It wasn't as if people's reactions were unpredictable, so I find it hard to believe that they honestly thought people wouldn't complain. As you pointed out, this seems more like a conscious "Door-in-the-face" technique [wikipedia.org] than a legitimate retraction.

Here's where the 10 day thing comes from

[Digital_Quartz (75366)]

The 10-day thing is required. Here's where it comes from.

BioShock released with an earlier version of this system; SecuROM with Product Activation. After outcry from people then, publisher 2K Games promised a "deactivation" tool (which isn't enough for me to rent their game, but I guess it was enough for some). The problem with this tool goes a little something like this:

Step 1: Install BioShock
Step 2: Activate BioShock. SecuROM server now thinks you have "n-1" activations left. Your game is activated, and BioShock will never phone home again.
Step 3: Ghost/clone your hard drive image.
Step 4: Deactivate BioShock. SecuROM server goes back up to "n" activations left. Your game is deactivated.
Step 5: Restore your harddrive from the image you created in step 3. Now your game is activated again, but the server doesn't know that, and still thinks you have "n" activations left.

This is obviously a bit of an onerous process to go through, but it isn't hard to imagine someone automating this process (or even just automating the important part; finding where the activation is stored on your drive, backing it up, and then restoring it after the deactivation process is finished updating the server).

I strongly suspect the "phone home every 10 days" was an attempt to "fix" this. If 30 different machines are all phoning home every few days with the same key, then you know people are using this (or a similar technique) to pirate the game, so you can ban the key and kill all those installs. Without the phone home part, this activation scheme is essentially worthless.

The CORRECT fix, of course, is to get rid of product activation, because it's stupid, invasive, and is pushing your formerly paying customers into circumventing your copy protection.

Re:

[hairyfeet (841228)]

Not if they want to sell copies of their games. The fact that so many are making jokes about it like Penny Arcade shows that it is building a nice groundswell of negative publicity. And with the recession tightening everyones belts, pretty much the LAST thing you want is for your new product to be looked at as a ripoff that is so bad it's a joke.

That said, the three install BS is the dealbreaker for me. Hell, I reinstall Windows from a prisitne disc image at least once a year on my gaming rig if not more

Pictured?

[WK2 (1072560)]

> EA had planned to use the validation method for upcoming titles Mass Effect and Spore (pictured).

Those games look a lot like a joystick.

Publicity

[Emb3rz (1210286)]

The original story on this garnered attention from quite a large crowd (even just in the scope of Slashdot). It would have been foolish on their part to plug ahead when, as was pointed out by a poster on the original thread, their customer service was already trained with what to tell people who didn't like the model: 'complain so that we don't make the same mistake with our next game release.'

Phew!

[kaos07 (1113443)]

I was worried I'd have to actually buy Spore.

Re:Phew!

[Perseid (660451)]

I don't know about everyone else, but protection like this makes me MUCH less likely to buy a game.

Re:

[alvinrod (889928)]

I'm not sure I undestand why you're less likely to buy it after the changes. There's no regularily set phone-home-and-authenticate functionality so after the intial install an online registration you never have to bother validating your copy of the game if you don't want to get new patches or play online (both of which require you to have an internet connection in order to accomplish.) so I fail to see what the fuss is about.

I suppose it sucks if you don't have internet access (but then how are you posting

Re:Phew!

[statemachine (840641)]

...after the intial install an online registration you never have to bother validating your copy of the game if you don't want to get new patches or play online... they dropped the overly silly requirement of having the CD/DVD in the drive while playing the game

Shelving the new requirement of needing a connection every few days, and then dumping the old requirement of occupying my DVD drive with a disk, is excellent news. Alcohol 120% will be out of business, but I'm glad I won't need them.

This is a win for both sides. Company saves money on non-game related development and infrastructure; customers' frustration level drops.

Re:Phew!

[Clockwork Apple (64497)]

I was more worried I would have to boycott Spore. Checking in when I DL content is ok cause then I am connected, but if the game is going to stop working due to extended lack of access to a connection, well... fuck em.

Re:Phew!

[Kingrames (858416)]

I was worried I'd have to pirate it.

The Horror

[nick_davison (217681)]

Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces, who pointed out that they could not rely on having an internet connection every ten days.

1914/18... Trenchfoot becomes rife due to lack of access to dry footwear/socks.

1939/45... Troops freeze through the Battle of the Bulge, across Russia.

2008... Access to certain videogames sometimes limited in certain situations for a few days until net access can be resecured.

I know "Won't anybody think of the troops!" is second only to "Won't anybody think of the children!" and can thus never be questioned unless you're a terrorist as well as a paedophile.. but there comes a point where the rallying cry is used for such ludicrously trivial things that it just devalues everyone involved.

Re:The Horror

[Free the Cowards (1280296)]

Um, what? Nobody is comparing it to trench foot or freezing in the winter because you're stuck outdoors and people are shooting at you. However there is a large class of people who go without internet connections for long periods of time, and that class of people doesn't appreciate this kind of DRM scheme. It says nothing about other bad things they may experience.

Your argument could be used to justify almost any bad treatment.

"Sarge, this stew tastes like horse meat!"

"Shut up and eat your stew, Private. Just be glad you don't have trench foot!"

Or, what the hell, I guess I shouldn't ever complain about anything, because some of my ancestors had to live through famines.

Horse meat is great

[patio11 (857072)]

Don't knock it until you've tried it. Cooked it is really quite similar to a very lean cut of beef, but raw and with just a dash of soy sauce it is really, really good.

Please don't all go PETA (OMG think of the ponies!) at once. They're dumber than pigs and pigs are delicious, too.

How about?

[ArchieBunker (132337)]

You don't like their policies or practices then don't fucking buy it. Thats the loudest thing you can say.

Re:How about?

[Rasit (967850)]

You don't like their policies or practices then don't fucking buy it.

You need to start thinking like a Suit guy.

Most of them seems to think they have a God given right to sell as many games as their marketing department projected, if they don't meet the projections then it s clearly due to Piracy and weak DRM.

If we don't make sure to tell them why we are boycoting them then we will eventually end up with something like this [penny-arcade.com].

Re:

[88NoSoup4U88 (721233)]

Well, apparently there seems to be some sort of middleground here too.

Whereas I agree that boycotting a certain product can be a very good tactic, I also think that if it's possible (with minimal effort) to let the producer know beforehand that you have problems with some aspects of their product, it can accomplish the same thing where you still get to play their product, and them realising that this time, they took it a bit too far.

I'd pretty much call that a win-win situation.

I was btw in the camp

Uhhhhh

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

I think that the real reason is because military personnel are non-trivial consumers of entertainment products. When you have a bunch of young people, with a good deal of free money on their hands (if you are deployed in a combat zone you get more pay, and generally have few expenses since everything is handled), and a situation that sucks, well that's a good target for entertainment goods. I know when one of my ex roommates graduated and was getting ready to go off he got a nice laptop and plenty of games and movies. The guys who do Red vs Blue said Iraq was one of the top countries ordering their DVDs. Wasn't Iraqis ordering, it was troops.

Thus it would be dumb for EA to shut out a large market. Especially since both of these games have strong single player components, and thus are of interest when you aren't going to have net access.

It isn't being used as a rallying cry, it is that the soldiers were honestly concerned they wouldn't be able to get their game on.

Um, there's a problem with this.

[raving griff (1157645)]

EA now says that validation will now only occur when a user attempts to download new content for either game. Spore is built on downloadable content. Throughout the game, the creatures you encounter, the worlds you visit, the buildings you see--they are all player-created objects and will all be downloaded in the background while the game is running. Spore is a game that only works well with downloadable content, and if I have to enter a validation code every time the game decides to download a creature or a planet, I'm not sure the promising gameplay will be worth the hassle.

Re:Um, there's a problem with this.

[MBGMorden (803437)]

Except that by definition, if you're downloading new content, you have an active net connection. The 10 day thing was arbitrary. A user might be without net connection at that time, at which point they wouldn't be accessing such content but would still be barred from playing the single player game.

Re:

[alvinrod (889928)]

My understanding from my following of the game since it was first announced is that due to the way in which the various creatures that inhabit a universe are defined, it's possible to download thousands of them with relatively little effort. I forget which conference or event it was at, but Will Wright explained that due the fact that everything in the game is proceedurally generated, it is possible to express a creature design not in terms of graphics skins and other large files, but as something very simi

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

[Zombie Ryushu (803103)]

DRM has no right to exist, and anyone who implements it should be severely punished. DRM should be resisted by any and all means necessary. We deserve a DRM free future, but we will have to fight for it. Do everything you can to end DRM today.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again.

[alvinrod (889928)]

I don't want to come of as pro-DRM, but I have a simple question for you?

Do you plan to purchase or play this game?

Considering that it's a heavily anticipated game and generally recognized as being one of the more creative and innovative titles to come in in a while, it's probably reasonable for me to expect that you want to play Spore. Your stated hate for DRM leads me to believe that you couldn't bring yourself to actually pay for any product that comes with any type of DRM. Assuming that you both want to play this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it?

If so, you're contributing to the reason why these companies think they need to have DRM. I can understand why people will pirate things when cost is a factor since I did it myself once upon a time, but if you pirate this game simply to spite the paid version which has DRM you're probably not doing the cause any help.

I appologize in advance for potentially mislabeling you or constructing a situation involving you from so little information, but I have a feeling that there are a few people who will pirate the game just because they dislike the notion of DRM despite the fact that they're going to play the hell out of it and had the money to easily purchase it.

This is blowing my mind

[sweatyboatman (457800)]

Assuming that you both want to play this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it?

The DRM is meant to prevent people from pirating the game, but he's going to pirate the game to avoid the DRM, which justifies EA's use of DRM, even though without the DRM he would buy the game.

Actually, you know, that's probably exactly how the execs over at EA think.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again.

[totally bogus dude (1040246)]

Honestly, I think you have it a bit backwards. This might be how The Industry thinks, but the lessening of DRM suggests that they've actually realised it's not quite so simple as that.

You state it yourself: Assuming that you both want to play this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it?

The answer to that is clearly "yes", which means "I would have bought if it weren't for the DRM". Publishers are realising that not only do most copy protection schemes not hugely inconvenience pirates, but it actively inconveniences your paying customers.

if you pirate this game simply to spite the paid version which has DRM you're probably not doing the cause any help.

If you buy it regardless of the DRM, what incentive does that give the publishers to stop using it?

I think it's more accurate to say that this is the ONLY thing* you can do to help, but it only helps if you make sure they know that they are losing sales specifically because of the DRM measures. Mentioning it on forums is a good and semi-anonymous way to get the point across. If they're reading "yeah I love the game, the copy protection is annoying but it's worth the hassle" then they'll get the message that ... their paying customers think it's worth the hassle, and they'll keep using it so long as they think it helps reduce piracy*. If they're constantly reading "I would've bought it, but the protection was too invasive" then their attitude toward it will change.

What it comes down to is that they make a list of pros and cons for and against their protection schemes. In the pros list, they have "might reduce piracy, for a little while". In the cons list they have "increases development and support costs, inconveniences users".

So, make sure they add "reduces sales" to the cons list, and it starts looking like a very poor return on investment.

* - since nobody knows how many people have pirated a game, not buying it is effectively the same as pirating it. The fact that any piracy figures are (by necessity) made up means that it gets the blame any time sales are lower than hoped.

Re:

[stupidflanders (1230894)]

That's a strange justification for theft:

I think it's more accurate to say that this is the ONLY thing* you can do to help

Have you ever thought of... just NOT playing the game. As in, at all? I understand I'll probably be modded troll because I'm talking crazy talk, but seriously. If there is something that you don't like, you could always:
* Complain to the company. (Obviously, in this case it worked! Shock!)
* Boycott it. Don't buy it. Don't play it. Don't buy their other games, even used. Even if corporate won't listen to you, they will listen to retailers. Find other creative

Life goes on

[alvinrod (889928)]

There probably isn't a lot of love for EA around here (or many parts of the internet in general) but you do have to admit that they responded fairly well to the situation. From what I've read the approach that they're planning to take now is actually pretty good, if not better than what most of us are probably used to dealing with. The fact that I don't need to have the CD in the drive while playing the game [kotaku.com] is a nice touch, especially for anyone who likes to switch between games frequently.

The only thing that you could really complain about is the necessity of an internet connection to validate on install. The only other time it bothers to validate is if you're downloading an update or using some other online feature which means you're already connected to the internet.

As someone who was a little put off by the overly encumbering DRM that was originally planned to be included, I'd like to tip my hat to EA for listening to their customers and making a wise decision.

More to worry about than that

[sweatyboatman (457800)]

The only thing that you could really complain about is the necessity of an internet connection to validate on install.

As with any complicated software system (especially one acting over the internet), there's a lot that can go wrong. If it doesn't work for any reason, they'll have spent a lot of money turning happy customers into angry returners.

A wise decision would be to forgo the DRM altogether, and apply the savings to reducing the retail price of the games. I guarantee that will have a far greater effect on sales than any DRM scheme ever would.

I DID IT! IT'S ALL ME!

[Aphoxema (1088507)]

In a drunk fit last night I actually sent a rant to them about it, I don't remember what I said exactly but I pointed out that DRM has actually driven me to download games instead of pay for them and if I couldn't expect to defeat the copy protection bullshit then I just wouldn't play the game.

Nothing no one's thought or said before, but I'm sure if enough gaming curmudgeons drank enough smirnoff ice at the same time while listening to EBM then there would surely be a rival to the mass mailing botnets that don't actually have anything useful to tell anyone.

It's freaking hot in here and Qwerty pisses me off. I'm going to drink some vinegar and go to bed.

It's still bad, even if it's a little better

[Mark McGann (570684)]

One of the things about being god awful bad at something is you can improve a lot and still stink.

The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game (although you can call EA tech support and ask for more, no guarantee though). I have many games that have existed on more than three of my personal computers. Just glancing at my shelf I see 1830, Star Fleet Command, Transport Tycoon, Starcraft, Rome Total War and the list goes on. I don't want to have to beg tech support every time I upgrade my game machine, many of these companies don't even exist anymore.

The fact of the matter is that DRM that limits the total number of times you can install the game is unacceptable. They may have fixed other problems with the DRM, but this issue remains.

Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better

[IKnwThePiecesFt (693955)]

I think a good compromise for this would be if they limited installs within a given period of time. Like three within a month. That would massively curb a cd key being shared online in a large pirate ring but would effect very few customers.

Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better

[Mascot (120795)]

Until they turn off the activation server. And eventually, they will.

This has bitten consumers in the ass when it comes to music, don't let it get a foothold in gaming.

MIA

[Whiteox (919863)]

I know I'm missing something here. Whatever brain cells I have left aren't firing properly, BUT:
WTF are US troops playing video games on? Laptops?
Pay a few $ at an Iraqi internet cafe?
Also, what kind of minimal system requirement do these new EA games need to run and can military issue hardware cope with it all? Are they running XP or Vista or their own custom OS?
The reason for why EA is doing this as reported seems to be a con. Just doesn't make sense

Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces

???

Just an illusion

[dupont54 (857462)]

This "loosening" is just to make people accept, even praised, "online activation/harware tying", which is in my mind the worst kind of DRM for purchased content (though it is a perfect fit for renting).
By accepting this DRM, you agree to have you ability to play a single player offline game controlled by an online server. There is no such thing as a one time only activation, as each time the system detect your computer has changed (which can be triggered by simply using a different windows account with crappy DRM), it will ask for activation again, eating your previous activation credit.
Nothing guarantee the auth server will be there when you want to play. Even if it is there, nothing guarantee it will give you the right to play because of some "normal usage" rules implemented on it (and which can change over time). And don't expect too much competence and generosity from a consumer service, especially a few months after launch.
The software, music and video industries are full of horror histories about activation servers going down or being simply dumb and rigid.

Re:

[Grave (8234)]

So it could be said that our military is not only protecting us from terrorists and imaginary weapons of mass destruction, but from evil corporations as well now?

*salute*

Re:

[night_flyer (453866)]

At least the "slaves" at EA have a choice as to whether they work there or not... Im more concerned about the real slaves, and children building all the gizmos and other crap we get from China...