Spore DRM Protest Makes EA Ease Red Alert 3 Restrictions 486
Crazy Taco writes "The heavy Amazon.com protest of Spore's DRM appears to have caught the attention of executives at EA. IGN reports that DRM for the upcoming C&C: Red Alert 3 will be scaled back. Unlike previous Command and Conquer games, the CD will not be required in the drive to play. The online authentication will be done just once (rather than periodic phone calls home), and up to five installations will be allowed, as opposed to three for Spore. While I still think five installations is too few (I've probably re-installed Command and Conquer: Generals 20 times over the years for various reasons), EA says they will have staff standing by to grant more installations as necessary on a case by case basis. So, while this still isn't optimal, at least we are getting a compromise. Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."
How is this a compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
What they should do is be honest and describe the limitations in the box.
-Warning: Zero resale value.
-This game can only be installed 5 times.
-This game will refuse to run when other applications are running or installed.
-Some applications will be installed to verify playing rights. These applications will be running even when the game is not.
Would that hurt sales? If they think they are offering a reasonable 'compromise' then they should just do it, and no one will have a reason to complain.
If they think it would be suicidal to do it, then they know they are still fucking their customers. So expect no sympathy.
If the piracy rate is low? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how that affects their decisions. Spore has reportedly been pirated half a million times - how has the DRM changed that? All it's done is piss off the paying customers, who are being treated like criminals.
DRM doesn't work against pirates. It only works against the honest people. When will companies learn that?
Less Piracy - Less DRM? WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future.
That's not how it works. If the piracy rate is low, they will herald their measures as a success, and it will only serve to increase the amount of DRM in the future.
-G
Re:If the piracy rate is low? (Score:5, Insightful)
To the contrary, I think it's probably driven MORE people to pirating the game just so they can say "screw you" to EA for the excessive DRM.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM, the snake oil of content producers (Score:5, Insightful)
No airtight DRM is possible (and Spore's already been cracked). But content producers are so obsessed with absolute control that they'll beg people to take money to sell them snake oil. Of course, this always works [rocknerd.co.uk]. Yeah.
Others speculate the real target of game DRM is to kill the second-hand market [neoseeker.com]. But, of course, that does no good when the competition is the cracked copies. Piracy: The Better Choice. [theinquirer.net]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm not really sure what's the way to go on it, but I know posting some BS FUD on Amazon like "SONY ROOTKITTED ME OMG!" and claiming victory when they raise the install limit to 5 is not the way to go."
I buy from Amazon a lot.. and I've also been waiting anxiously for Spore. So I went on over to Amazon the other day to pre-order it and was a little shocked to see 1 star ratings. So I read the reviews. They were a very far cry from "SONY ROOTKITTED ME OMG!". They were thorough, intelligent, well thought-out and actually educated me on the whole securom thing as I haven't been on /. that much lately and missed the article(s) about Spore's DRM.
Anyway, the comments actually persuaded me to not buy the game. I don't feel like paying hard-earned money for something that will only install X number of times (even if the number is 1,000 I don't care. Like other people I've still got games that are 15+ years old that I install every once in a while for old-time's sake) and will phone home and require an Internet connection every time I play it etc.
Customer feedback is the single most important thing that a business needs to pay attention to in order to succeed. Restaurants can not grow without reading comment cards and responding to their customers complaints and suggestions. Game companies can not grow by pissing off their customers. If EA ignores the negative feedback about this DRM then they deserve to be out of business in a couple of years. I was going to e-mail them to explain why I decided not to buy Spore but I couldn't find a contact address. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Not about piracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."
It's NOT about piracy, it's about removing the ability to transfer your game to someone else (used game sales, lending to a friend, etc).
What improvement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Red Alert 3 will give us infinity minus five too few installs. Not an improvement in my book.
I don't think the install limit is really about piracy anyway, it's a method to force you to buy the game more than once and to prevent you from buying it second hand.
Re:If the piracy rate is low? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was going to buy the Spore "Collector's Edition" if it wasn't for SecuROM. I'm sure I'm not alone. Even if most people would have waited for it to be 30$ or 20$, a lot of my friends were considering buying it. I told them not to, that we'll just get a cracked version.
I don't think anybody who wanted to buy the game and knew about the DRM actually bought it. Or if they did they're running a cracked version and bought the game due to troll's remorse or received it as a gift.
So its exactly the same (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything on RA 3 is exactly the same as Spore, except with a 5 instead of a 3. Nothing has changed. Its clear that EA doesn't get it, and they'll need a few games to completely bomb before they do.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundamentally, there is an important point with DRM on works of culture that's not applicable when applied to the things DRM is usually applied to. At work, for example, the provider of our middleware application has implemented license checks that could cause the same kind of issue. But a middleware app won't work cause it won't activate anymore? It's probably out of support anyway, time to move to a new version.
Businesses don't usually need a particular version -- and if they do, and it's a big enough showstopper, the vendor comes out and does a hot fix so new-version does what old-version did better. (Yes you can, I've seen it. You just have to need it badly enough.)
Games are different. Halo 2 is not the same as Halo. Twilight Princess is a very different game from Zelda 64. The "upgraded" original Star Wars trilogy cuts are widely seen as inferior to the original versions. Then there are games like Planescape: Torment, which is essentially unreleaseable (Interplay died, D&D license expired, uses 2nd edition, content wouldn't pass Hasbro's restrictions). So while enforcing obsolesence on middleware *might* be OK, it's definitely not OK to make video games that are essentially guaranteed not to work in 10 years.
So nice try, EA. Good, but not good enough. Games have an aesthetic quality; a given game is totally unique and irreplaceable -- that's why we like them.
Re:Generous terms ? Compromise ? Haha. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see a tiny bit of a case for the CD-check (though quite honestly, no, I do not agree with it -- it's YET ANOTHER thing that pirates don't have to deal with. If you have kids, you will definitely not want them to handle unprotected (physically) media too much -- the scratches will be a killjoy; Legitimate owners of games have been using NoCD-patches for AGES; it's ineffective, it inconveniences your customers (the ones that PAY you for the game, no less), etc.
The leasing is not really on any "generous" terms; 5 installs is exactly as bad as 3. 10 would be as bad as 5. Having to justify why you want to install the game again in a few years' time is laughable. Again, pirates do not have to deal with that crap. At all. Generosity would start at services such as you being able to download the entirety of the game if your media is scratched, perhaps by way of submitting your CD key or a picture of the receipt. But hell, that would actually make life easier for customers. Can't have that.
Yes, the submitter seems to be a shill for EA, painting this in a positive light and encouraging not to pirate to show them we appreciate it. No. I do not appreciate it. I own several C&C games. I will not be buying the next one. Congratulations EA, you just lost another sale.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
And EA still has no obligation to fulfill more than 3/5 installs. 10 years from now when I want to play Spore will those staff still be standing by to help me out or will they instead suggest to buy Spore 3 and go screw myself?
Re:DRM, the snake oil of content producers (Score:3, Insightful)
So what about First Sale Doctrine?
I have a RIGHT to sell whatever I want, especially what I buy from a boxed store.
Re:Yeah, sure its because of some comments on Amaz (Score:4, Insightful)
"At least we are getting a compromise" (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.
COMPROMISE? Yeah, instead of renting a game for 3 installs, you're renting it for 5. WELL WHOOPDEEDOO. I'm not paying for what amounts to a RENTAL. Maybe EA thinks they can buy copyright legislation and force DRM down our throats, but I won't be a part of it. They've pushed me too far.
If the piracy rate is low for their DRM'ed program perhaps they will have one with no DRM? What is wrong with you? NO! If there is ANY DRM AT ALL then it is fair game to pirate. I won't pay for a refrigerator with a lock on it that I can only get food out of if its plugged in to a GE power supply. Screw DRM. Any limits on our consumer rights are crimes against humanity.
This was the stupidest, worst reasoned article I've ever read on slashdot. And I remember the days of Jon Katz.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM = Digitally Restricted Media (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. I was interested in this game and I surely would have bought it had I not learned of the DRM issues. Thank goodness for all of the outcry and press on this otherwise I might have fallen into the trap. I'm not much of a gamer, but the reviews of this game made we want to get it (the complaints hard-core gamers had of it actually made it appeal to me). I like how Will Wright's games are about "playing" rather than "winning".
But the DRM issue made me reconsider. I surely wasn't going to just buy it and install it. I'm just fundamentally opposed to buying things that would prevent me from exercising first sale doctrine. To me, I had two options. Buy it but download the non-crippled pirated version or do nothing. I've decided to do nothing. Buying it would give them $ and they won't learn. Instead, they don't get $50 from me.
EA has done nothing to prevent piracy and by doing this they lowered the intrinsic value of the game and pissed off would-be paying customers. Nicely done, EA. This issue is costing them millions. Good.
-S
Re:We will not compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
Buying things is quick, easy, and without hassle. Pirating on the other hand is a pain in the ass, time consuming, and risky. My time is worth more than what it takes to pirate
I have the exact opposite leanings. To go buy a game I have to go out to some shitty games store (the ones around here are all shitty, your mileage may vary) and that takes time out of my day. At the very least I have to go online and buy it, and then it takes a few days to arrive. Pirated copy... takes minutes to find a torrent, then I can leave it downloading in the background and when I come back later it's done
Hell, it's not worth my time to not pirate stuff
Re:We will not compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry that you haven't been fully informed about the release of the new Command and Conquer: Red Alert game.
While there is, indeed, a version with restrictive Digital Rights Management(DRM), there is also going to be another version completely free of DRM. I'll run you through a quick comparison of the features of both versions, so that you, the consumer, may make an informed decision regarding how to spend your money.
Version 1.
-Can only be installed 5 times.
-Installs spyware on your computer.
-Comes with box and manual.
-$49.95
Version 2.
-Can be installed any number of times.
-Does not install spyware on your computer.
-Will likely be released several days before Version 1.
-Available for download from the comfort of your own home.
-$0.00
Have a consumptive day.
It's All About (Score:5, Insightful)
Be honest! Spore is nothing more than a very expensive rental game now -- not a purchase.
And the only way to make this all go away is to absolutely refuse to buy their product because other manufacturers will follow suit.
I've never pirated a game, but if I wanted to try out Spore I'd pirate a cracked copy of this one.
DRM + High Cost = Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
The last 2 big games I bought was Doom 3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein.. and the expansion pack for Doom 3.
And that's been a while, I know, I know.
But whatever the protection on these games are, I certainly don't mind. Got to register, have the CD in the first time, that's pretty much it.
But paying for a game, and having the amount of times I can re-installed it controlled is not good, and forcing the CD in the game at all times, without being able to even make a legitimate backup isn't good either.
I will never buy games like that. This DRM is causing pirating in the first place, that and the high cost of the games.
Because I loved the Doom franchise, I didn't mind forking out the 70$ back then, when it came out. Same for Wolfenstein, although as I recall, I only paid about 45$ for the game.
But in the end, when a game is more than 30$ for PC, Unless it's got a killer review and I mean a KILLER review, I will more than likely not going to buy it and no matter how cheap the game is in price, if I have to suffer that level of DRM, such as limited amount of installs and having the CD in at all times, I'm keeping my money and spending it on console games like the Wii.
Anyways, that's how I see it.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
So nice try, EA. Good, but not good enough. Games have an aesthetic quality; a given game is totally unique and irreplaceable -- that's why we like them.
How is this even considered a nice try? How is this considered good? It is not good. Its fucking pathetic.
Not that I endorse it, but piracy exists for a reason. EA is just adding fuel to the fire, by treating their customers like they are crooks. As if the people that pay money, for this crap, can not be trusted.
EA management (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes I get the feeling that the management of a company seems determined to undermine their position and drive their company to the ground... ... or maybe the EA execs never played a game in their life.
Take Red Alerts' main competitor: Starcraft. There are people still playing it, now, more than 12 years after its release (and I understand there'sa huge community). I still have Red Alert 1 on a shelf and I actually played it a little last year, just for the good time's sake.
I have many games I cherish, despite not having a lot of time to play. Last month I replayed Lucas Arts' Full Throttle (through Dos Box).
Limiting a game to 5 installs is more idiotic than limiting a movie to 5 viewings (I don't watch again 90% of the movies, and there are only 1 or 2 I saw 5 times) and I doubt that those who actually bought Spore were fully aware of the implications. Not to worry, they will learn. And when they do, EA will have less customers...
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We will not compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
i dont know about you, but piracy these days is a piece of proverbial piss.
1) download iso .nfo file included with iso
2) mount iso, install game
3) enter cd key in
4) copy crack from CRACK dir in cd root dir
5) enjoy your game without DRM
do the above, and you will have pre-2000 gaming experience with regards to copy protection. its amazing that these companies still actually think their DRM actually stops pirates. as i recall, spore was released to the pirate community days before the actual release. if it can be cracked, it will be. why punish the actual customers?
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:2, Insightful)
One could argue that EA might interpret that as "people happy with the game and are buying it, but there are more people pirating it even with this level of DRM, so we need to make it more restrictive." Unless they can correlate people using cracks with the people buying the game, that's not going to get your point across.
Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) taking this passive-aggressive route, why not contact EA directly and say "Hey, I bought this game, I like it, but I can't deal with these bullshit restrictions." That way you make your opinion known unambiguously without having to rely on their interpretation of pirating information.
Re:We will not compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
That's great if you're fine with playing it in a few days, or maybe your torrent performance is always fantastic on all torrents. I grabbed the torrent of Spore, and after waiting for several hours while doing other stuff, it was still at 1% or so (I was averaging under 5kbps - yes, my settings are fine, other torrents can zip right along). I got fed up to the point where I just went out and bought the thing. Popped it in the drive, installed, done, playing before the torrent hit 5%, and played through most of the game before 10%. It finally finished up a couple of days ago.
Point being that when I want to play a game, I'm looking for something that I can play _now_, not wait hours or days for a download to complete to save some money. Buying it did get me that, even if it got me little else. I did have to go out and hunt down a copy at a physical store which I always hate doing (especially when you forget that most stores close at 6pm on Sunday; luckily (or not) Best Buy stays open till 7 here), but it DID still satisfy that urge for something to do that evening.
Now having said and done all that, I'd have rather waited as it certainly didn't live up to the hype. It was fun, but the interesting parts don't last nearly long enough and each stage keeps changing the gameplay style very awkwardly. I don't have an issue with having paid for it, but it was worth maybe $20-25 for the entertainment value it provided. It has reaffirmed my opposition to EA though, for reasons unrelated to the DRM (though that certainly doesn't help).
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, no. I could be *BUYING* a license (plus physical media) which are then mine to resell.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hello, Interplay? Yeah, I need to re-authorize Descent and Conquest of the New World, whats that, There are like, ten people working at your company and you are mostly bankrupt? Getting evicted from your offices? That sucks" (side note, interplay has no way to contact them at all on their years old single image webpage, though they have apparently sold some assets recently)
Hello, Vivendi Universal, yeah I need to authorize some of my games, Well it was a Sierra game, you know, before you bought Sierra, oh you know that, good. well actually Sierra bought this company a decade before that, so can you authorize it? Oh they took those servers down years ago along with the multiplay lobby? Right...
Hello, Activision, I know this might be a long-shot, But I was trying to re-install some of my Infocom games and, well you shut them down in 89... Yeah, you own their games, really, never heard of it? Zork? Nothing? Well I'm wondering if you can activate it for me, why are you laughing? What's so funny?...
I love playing games old and new, and I certainly expect that just as I can pop in super mario bros or sonic into my old systems, that I can also reinstall old PC games forever and ever, (on the OS they were designed for) The games industry is a volatile place, the rock solid big player of one decade is the next decades dinosaur, becoming a forgotten footnote in a companies IP portfolio.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We will not compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right."
Elaborate on why that is "not right".
If you cannot demonstrate your point, then that is simply your personal ethical opinion. I see no reason why your imposing moral visions should effect my actions when they harm no one, as I've already demonstrated.
I'm certainly not harming the creators in any way. I'm not stealing their bandwidth, packaging, or money any more than I would by simply ignoring the product.
The only thing wrong with software piracy is it decreases sales of a product. That's only my concern if I want the product, or the publisher, to succeed. While that might convince me to put my $50 vote in on a product from a different company, it is simply not a motivating factor for me here.
In this case, I'm rather hoping the product fails, and I'm certainly hoping the company fails, so that argument does not apply to this situation.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather pirate it and then send $50 anonymously to Will Wright, with a note explaining why I did that instead of buying the game. Or pirate it and donate $50 to the EFF in EA's name. Or not play it at all.
Re:It's All About (Score:3, Insightful)
This is definitely true, but it's worth nothing who is being targeted here. It's not the consumer EA is going for, it's the retailer that EA is after. Gamestop and their ilk, who up until fairly recently have largely been traditional retailers, have heavily gone in to the used game business. It's very profitable for them, they buy a game for pennies and then resell it for MSRP-$5, pocketing a nice profit in the process.
The Entertainment Software Association and its members have taken great offense to this, not on the grounds that a used game market hurts their profits (it does, but then again it has existed for years) but rather the amazing conflict of interest it has created with retailers. Gamestop doesn't want to sell you a new game, there's no profit in it for them, they want to sell you that used game that they got for next to nothing. And it's expanding, Best Buy and Walmart want to get in to the game too. In short, the guys that are selling games in meatspace are doing everything they can to drive customers away from new copies of the game and towards used copies.
It's this that has EA and the other publishers in flames. Their sales of single player games are getting murdered, and in some cases the meatspace retailers are making more money than the publisher did, because the same game is being circulated 2-4 times giving the retailer the chance to make a profit nearly equal to the retail price of the game, 2-4 times over. The problem is a simultaneous loss of revenue on the publisher's side, along with watching someone else co-opt your product and make far more money (virtually all profit) by driving away your customers.
So this is why we're going to see things like SecuROM and other DRM schemes that prevent second-hand copies from being playable, along with platforms like Steam and Impulse, and games with a MP component that requires account activation. All of these make reselling a game impossible. Until digital distribution can completely usurp meatspace sales, they're going to want to shut down Gamestop's activities as much as possible through other means. And while the consumers aren't the target, they'll be the ones to suffer the most.
What's going to be most interesting is how the next-generation consoles are going to deal with this. These changes are coming to the PC first because it's an open platform that allows such a change immediately, while there's no way to close the hole with consoles. Publishers are going to want to put an end to retailers engaging in second-hand sales with their console games too, so I'm left wondering how they'll go about it since the physical media has always been considered a valid token of game ownership.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
They customers wrote shit reviews for spore, and this is no fucking different. 3 vs 5 is not the problem. Even if it was a more reasonable 10 times, its still telling us the consumer that we are not trusted. And they want to shaft us out of value. Are we buying a product or a temporary license?
The kind of shit these companies try to get away with just wouldn't fly in any other market. If you buy a Car from GM you can only fill the tank at BP or you have the engine wont start. Buy a vacuum cleaner, and it will only work in the house that you first plugged it into. Try it elsewhere and you have to get it factory reset first. This costs $10 for the privilege. Its stupid. We can all see it. Why cant they?
Re:We will not compromise (Score:2, Insightful)
If your morals permit stealing
For the trillionth time, copyright infringement != stealing. And EA can whine about morals when they drop crippleware rootkits and limited installs.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also this is hardly an easing of the DRM due to the protests, its exactly the same as it was going to be *BEFOURE* Spore was released (then again Slashdot is slower to get news than Digg/Reddit), back when there was only some limited grumbling about the DRM. RA was already going to be 5 installs and Spore doesn't require the CD either, the only difference with the Spore system is 2 more installs, that is hardly a major change.
Since Spore release and since that RA announcement there has been heaps more consumer backlash over the system with many, many people pirating it to spite the DRM and several Digg/Reddit front pages.
Lets still the cries of the users. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's clear to me that this new DRM scheme has nothing to do with users and everything to do with the used game market. Spore would be pirated whether it had DRM or not, EA aren't stupid. Those are lost sales either way. However, the DRM scheme basically removes Spore from the used game shelves so any potential players that come along later on when it hits the bargain bins, will have to buy the legit EA copy and not the five dollar cheaper used. That's money out of Gamespots pocket and into EA's.
Online activation will be a win for EA and developers, they just have to get the balance right, and/or for the users to get used to it. Meanwhile, EB and Gamespot will be hurting.
Re:How is this a compromise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we have a DRM bill of rights?
1. DRM will remain invisible to the end user unless they are attempting to pirate the game.
2. The DRM system will be obvious, uninstallable through normal means, and will not make an effort to hide itself.
3. DRM will *never* run when the game is not running. (Performance is bad enough without 40 versions of a poorly-written software running around.)
4. DRM will never fail to authenticate due to the existence of tools with legitimate uses, although the DRM may require said tools be closed before the game will run. The DRM will never alter functionality of your system when not running.
5. DRM will never require the user to call the manufacturer for any reason.
6. Manufacturers are responsible for maintaining their DRM system on the latest version of the operating system for a minimum of 8 years after release.
7. If the DRM does phone home, it will do so without any personal data unrelated to the basic mechanics of managing rights.
8. Phoning home should not exceed once per month, with a one-month window for the player to have an internet connection. "Requires Network Connection To Play" will be prominently featured on the box and all related marketing material.
9. If a network verification server is ever end-of-lifed, the software manufacturer must either universally unlock all software that is no longer being verified or refund the original purchase price for all users.
10. All purchasers of digital downloads will have the right to re-download for up to 8 years after the original purchase. This must include some format which can be archived in a format that can be directly installed (pending verification server, if applicable).
11. All DRM restrictions will be clearly listed on the box and related marketing material in plain english in no less than 9 point font.
Re:We will not compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does anyone have to elaborate on "not right" when it comes to piracy. It is freaking obvious. But fine, if you are really that dense. Just simply do the "other shoes" thing. If you spent years of your life working on something, how would you feel if someone just took your work without compensating you for it? You would be upset...and if you are trying to say you would be cool with it, you are being intellectually dishonest.
The best way to protest is to not buy their product and give your money to someone who does what you consider right. The people like you, the pirate, are a large part of the reason that DRM exists and that we all have to suffer. If people did the "right thing", then DRM would not be an issue.
You probably think I am anti-piracy...and I really am not. Do whatever you want. But don't try to fool yourself or others that you are morally in the right. That's just one of the stupidest things I have to read on this site on an almost daily basis.