EA Loosens Spore, Mass Effect DRM 249
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.'"
Life goes on (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sudden outbreak... (Score:3, Interesting)
a. EA
b. Worded correctly
Just doesn't sound like EA....
I'm scared
Re:Um, there's a problem with this. (Score:3, Interesting)
You've also made the assumption that you have to enter a validation code. Why wouldn't the game just store the key that was used to register it and automatically take care of it? It probably won't be a hastle unless the key has been orgied out to all of your friends and the authentication server flags it as suspicious and bans it. There might be a few false positives but for the most part I don't forsee you getting locked out unless you're playing with a pirated copy.
Re:Phew! (Score:5, Interesting)
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:I've said it before, I'll say it again. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
MIA (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Sudden outbreak... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:1, Interesting)
Eh, let's get one thing straight (Score:4, Interesting)
From the same Wikipedia page:
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.
Still needs the internet to install it... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Sudden outbreak... (Score:4, Interesting)