Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games Your Rights Online

EA Hit By Class-Action Suit Over Spore DRM 538

The ever-growing unrest caused by the DRM involved with EA's launch of Spore came to a head on Monday. A woman named Melissa Thomas filed a class-action lawsuit against EA for their inclusion of the SecuROM copy-protection software with Spore. This comes after protests of the game's DRM ranged from a bombardment of poor Amazon reviews to in-game designs decrying EA and its policies. Some of those policies were eased, but EA has also threatened to ban players for even discussing SecuROM on their forums. The court documents (PDF) allege: "What purchasers are not told is that, included in the purchase, installation, and operation of Spore is a second, undisclosed program. The name of the second program is SecuROM ... Consumers are given no control, rights, or options over SecuROM. ... Electronic Arts intentionally did not disclose to any such purchasers that the Spore game disk also possessed a second, hidden program which secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA Hit By Class-Action Suit Over Spore DRM

Comments Filter:
  • by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j&ww,com> on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:04PM (#25141611) Homepage

    and do the same for any other DRM laden product, it'll teach the manufacturers quickly to stay away from DRM.

    • by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:11PM (#25141745)

      Boycotting is fine if you can manage the sacrifice yourself. But if you still want the game, but you would just rather not see malware attached in future editions, a suit works out better -- hits them, potentially, in the wallet due to the settlement and negative image portrayal.

      • by Fallen Kell ( 165468 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:14PM (#25141805)
        Boycotting doesn't work anymore. I have been boycotting most music for years, yet the music companies just point their finger and blame the drop in sales to pirates. Software companies will do the same thing.
        • by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j&ww,com> on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:21PM (#25141945) Homepage

          If there are alternatives and those alternatives do well (without the DRM) then I'm sure the message will come across loud and clear.

          And if it doesn't then the market will take care of them eventually. We're really only in the beginnings of this phase of the copyright game and it will take a while for it to play out but I'm pretty confident that eventually all media will be DRM free and will use open standards. It's the vested interests that have the most to lose here, new talent really couldn't care less, they'll take the audience and run with it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by somersault ( 912633 )

            Unfortunately since Spore is quite a unique game, the only real alternative is really to pirate (or wait for the console version)!

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Unfortunately since Spore is quite a unique game, the only real alternative is really to pirate (or wait for the console version)!

              I know... how about the alternative of not playing it? It's not like playing the latest video games is an innate human right. You're not going to die because you had to skip out on a game that fucks up your computer. Get over it. There's nothing requiring you to play the latest crap spewed out by the "evil" corporations, other than your own greed.

              EA makes games with SecuR

            • by sortius_nod ( 1080919 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @09:25PM (#25145929) Homepage

              It's not a unique game. It's just like every other life/city/god sim you can think of. The game isn't that great.

              Piracy SHOULDN'T be the answer. Invasive DRM is as bad, if not worse, than poorly programed game.

              If anyone remembers FADE they'd know what truly fucked copy protection is. I had an original version of both Operation Flashpoint and the first expansion pack. I loved it. Until fade kicked in. I bought the game, but Codemasters FADE system decided that I wasn't. Gameplay degraded to the level where it was impossible to play.

              I boycotted Codemasters for ages, didn't help. It was only when FADE received enough (almost any customer with ability to write) complaints that it was canned.

              I for one refuse to buy this game due to the intrusive DRM. While I'm no Valve fanboy, I REALLY like Steam. It's the ultimate DRM without being fucked about it.

              True, you need a decent internet connection, and need to be prepared for it to crash occasionally, but at least it doesn't fuck with the rest of my computer. I can reinstall windows on a different drive to the install and just run it. No install, nothing. It just works.

              I can backup my games to disc, I can take them to a friend's house, install them, play them. Hell, even leave them installed and let the friend play when I'm not on.

        • by snowraver1 ( 1052510 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:30PM (#25142103)
          I boycott most music as well, but just because it sucks. The best music (IMO of course) was made in the 80's and 90's. The VAST majority of my downloaded music is content that I originally had a CD for, but have lost over the course of several moves.
        • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:30PM (#25142111) Homepage Journal

          It worked in the eighties. The major game writing software houses had DRM, the indies didn't. The indies were ironically the guys like Carmak and Broussard who were putting out shareware and are now running the big game companies.

          "Don't trust anyone over 25" - Cory Doctorow ;)

        • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:42PM (#25142339) Homepage

          While I hear what you're saying and I'm sure it's right on the personal level, it's not like EMI went to heaven when they started carrying iTunes plus DRM-free songs. Same with Amazon and all the others selling music from the big bands (and there's always emusic and the like but that's really a mainstream vs independent issue), the signals aren't exactly loud and clear that no DRM equals more profit. At least here on slashdot there's always someone complaining it's not FLAC at AllOfMp3 prices with a Linux client or somesuch. It's possible that the DRM companies are pissing in the common pool but if the DRM and DRM-free shops are hit equally hard then the message is just lost along with all the economic ups and downs, consumer trends and all that hits the industry as a whole. Plus people aren't exactly binary, some love their bands and hate DRM but still end up buying some things they simply "must have" and others not. Also album sales are notoriously difficult to predict, so a few percent here and there is completely drown out by the record being a hit or a flop anyway, it needs to be clear that DRM flops, no DRM tops. It's just not that clear and I don't think there's enough people with you to get that message across.

      • by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) * on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:15PM (#25141823) Homepage Journal
        Or they could just call 'em "Rentals" as they should and stick on DRM eula(which nobody will read anyway).
      • by moderatorrater ( 1095745 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:18PM (#25141889)
        Especially with the way the Sony rootkit debacle went down. They're not identical situations, but they're similar enough to give one hope.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Didn't the Sony rootkit thing get cleared up primarily because of a series of class action lawsuits? [arstechnica.com] Boycotts are a rather blunt instrument to use to try to express something like "This game is good, but the DRM sucks", by simply not buying the message is indistinguishable from "This game sucks." A lawsuit very specifically names the issue and is sure to be communicated precisely to the upper management.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hal_Porter ( 817932 )

        Boycotting is fine if you can manage the sacrifice yourself. But if you still want the game, but you would just rather not see malware attached in future editions, a suit works out better -- hits them, potentially, in the wallet due to the settlement and negative image portrayal.

        So buy the game and download the cracked version and use that instead.

    • by HappySmileMan ( 1088123 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:15PM (#25141813)

      Problem is, every copy of a game they don't sell, they seem to blame on piracy, not their own worthless products.

    • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:16PM (#25141853)

      and do the same for any other DRM laden product, it'll teach the manufacturers quickly to stay away from DRM.

      Or, they'll drop PC gaming and just move to consoles, where the DRM is just a part of the platform (make no mistake, I enjoy console gaming, but DRM is completely seamless and transparent on a console). I fear the wrong lessons will be learned unless people are also very clear about *why* they are not purchasing a particular product. The flipside to this is to reward the companies who produce products DRM free PC games with your voting dollars (or euros, pounds, whatever).

      • by scatters ( 864681 ) <mark@scatters.net> on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:30PM (#25142093)

        Check out StarDock's Gamers' Bill of Rights. http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1095 [stardock.com]

        Sins of a Solar Empire is an excellent RTS game, with frequent major updates.

        • by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:41PM (#25142319) Journal

          I wish they'd make an RPG. I've been hearing about Stardock for months and would love to become a customer... but I loathe RTSes.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by nschubach ( 922175 )

          It's been pointed out MANY times that Stardock games do have DRM. I point you to the sig.bin file (which causes a validation check if removed) in your install folder and this image:
          http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/8435/stardockactivationeo1.png [imageshack.us]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by orclevegam ( 940336 )
        The DRM on consoles isn't like the DRM people are up in arms over on PCs. If you had a console game that you bought at the store, had to connect online whenever you played it, required you to install a piece of it to the hard drive, and only allowed you to uninstall/reinstall it 3 times before it would refuse to run, people would be talking about boycotting it as well. As it is, the downloadable content on some systems (*cough*Wii*cough*) being tied to a particular console already caused a bit of a ruckus,
      • by daver00 ( 1336845 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @06:01PM (#25143735)

        I don't buy that argument about console DRM. Sure, its hard(er) to burn games on consoles but there is one stark difference with more or less all console games: I can eject my disc, take it to my mates house, pop it in his console and play it there. I can also re sell my used games and there is an avid market for this, hell the two biggest ps3 titles this year have been available for swap for "6 used ps2 games" at many stores around the place.

        DRM on the PC exists explicitly to prevent you from doing any of this. I don't see why. I don't see why you can re sell a console game and not a pc game? I don't see why you can share your console games with your friends and not your pc games? Plus there is little if any difference with the levels of piracy on consoles, I'm not exactly up to speed with current gen mod chipping but last gen was ridiculous. It was EASIER to pirate games on the ps2 and xbox than on a pc, if you got a mod chip, which everyone did, especially the non geeks. Seems everyone knew someone who would install that chip for $100, and everyone did it, and everyone had a stupidly large stack of ripped games.

        There is an elephant i nthe room that nobody seems to bring up in these debates. This DRM stuff is not about controlling piracy, this is about controlling your purchasing decisions. They should call it 'digital revenue mangement'.

    • by grumbel ( 592662 ) <grumbel+slashdot@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:33PM (#25142169) Homepage

      The big problem is that boycotting doesn't really work, not only is there the problem that the publisher will conclude that piracy was the fault, not DRM, but there is also the problem that the publshier is often the one dictating the DRM not the developer, in fact the developers are often against it, but they can't really do much about it. And when boycotting the publisher means to also boycott the developers that I actually care about, then boycotting is often a not an option.

    • by bwcbwc ( 601780 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:42PM (#25142337)

      Nah, I prefer going after them with the Computer Fraud and Abuse act or consumer laws in several states that prohibit installing software without explicit authorization (and burying it in a 20 screen EULA doesn't count) from the user. Lawyer fees add up a lot faster than lost sales.

    • by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:46PM (#25142407)

      and do the same for any other DRM laden product, it'll teach the manufacturers quickly to stay away from DRM.

      Note to everybody: This comes up in every single thread about DRM and it's always debunked in every single thread. Boycotting will not do anything to get a company to change its mind about DRM. Your lack of a purchase cannot be distinguished from a lack of interest, a pirated copy, or even a slow economy. Boycotting will never work with creative products like movies, music, or video games. It works on products such as Coca Cola. That's because the company can see a change in the average number of sales. With products like video games, a boycott cannot be measured.

      Please stop suggesting it. Please stop modding it up. It is not a solution. One-star reviews on Amazon worked, being silent did not. Shush.

      • by ferat ( 971 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @05:12PM (#25142909) Homepage

        Buy and return it, explain why you are returning it. Shows that you had interest but are not willing to support the policies.

      • Boycotting is only effective if the companies know they're being boycotted. The only way it can work is if everyone who doesn't buy a game *because of the boycott* notify the company. Preferably by form letter, so they can see how much they're affected by an organized boycott.

    • by Ephemeriis ( 315124 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:49PM (#25142443)

      Problem is that boycotts don't really work that well anymore. Sure, I can boycott them... And maybe a couple dozen other people will too... But EA will still make plenty of money from the thousands and thousands of people who'll happily buy their products. And any loss in sales will simply be attributed to piracy.

      For a boycott to actually work you need to get enough people participating that it becomes impossible to ignore. And the vast majority of people these days just don't seem to care.

      A lawsuit, on the other hand, gets attention. EA will, at the very least, have to throw some money at some lawyers. Maybe they'll wind up settling out of court... Maybe there'll be a real judgement... But either way EA is going to have to at least respond to the accusations.

      And if it gets big enough, you might just see something about this on CNN on a slow news day. If EA got enough bad press we might even wind up with an effective boycott.

      • by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @08:23PM (#25145421)

        You people that keep saying boycotts don't work have no idea what a boycott is. A boycott isn't not buying a product. As an example let me give you a historical reference to a few boycotts. When you boycott something you don't just not purchase it. What you do is not buy the product, tell everyone else not to buy the product and why, and create as much publicity for the boycott as you can.

        In the old days before everyone ranting in their basement at their computer screen a boycott involved two things. Not buying the product and making a sign that you then took and stood in front of a store with and explained to shoppers what you were boycotting and why. When the southern Baptists announced their boycott of Disney for giving benefits to same sex couples they didn't just stop going to Disney parks and buying Disney movies and products they made a bunch of signs and picketed in front of Disney World, called the press so they reported on it AND then picketed for months in front of the property. They also leafleted and got in front of the media at every opportunity.

        So lets summarize. It's not a boycott unless their is publicity and your Mother is talking to her friends about it over the weekly Bridge game. Without broad publicity a boycott is nothing more than a change in purchase habits and is meaningless. It's not a Boycott if the CEO of the company doesn't know WHY you stopped buying products.

        So all you people that keep saying boycotts don't work, you either don't know what a boycott is or you don't understand what's needed to make it a boycott. Properly executed boycotts are often highly successful, only in situations where succumbing to the boycott demands would cost more customers will the boycott fail.

    • Boycotts are quiet (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nerdposeur ( 910128 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @05:17PM (#25143035) Journal

      A boycott says "I don't like what you're doing." A lawsuit says "I think what you're doing is (or should be) illegal." It's a much stronger - and more public - statement.

      Personally, I wouldn't get involved this one. But I hope they win. DRM on purchased products are anti-consumer.

    • by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @06:09PM (#25143845) Homepage Journal

      Economy 101: Boycotts do not work in a monopoly or oligopoly market.

      That's why boycotts on oil companies never worked and never changed anything - you can't just go and buy something else instead.

      If your options were "Spore with DRM" and "Spore without DRM", it would be easy to vote with your dollars. But your choice is "Spore with DRM" and "no Spore", which leaves you no choice that transports a message, because "no purchase" is not an event and thus does not trigger a response. Publicly saying you "would have bought, but reconsidered" as happens on Amazon, is the closest you get.

  • The "Ban" (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Moof ( 859402 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:09PM (#25141711)
    The ban in question is on EA's forums, not from the game.
    • Re:The "Ban" (Score:5, Informative)

      by X-Kal ( 861125 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:14PM (#25141803)
      That's not entirely true, it seems. http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/3869.page [spore.com]
      "Please do not continue to post theses thread or you account may be at risk of banning which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."
      The text is in red, and it looks like the post has been edited. It's a shame that Spore's forums won't let you see who made the edit, however. It would be nice if we could see, without a doubt, that it was edited by a moderator.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by The Moof ( 859402 )
        Kotaku covered the same thing, and debunked it here [kotaku.com].
        And Here's the page in a thread [spore.com] where the guy posting your thread (jpfrostfox) said he screwed up, with the forum moderator (sporemasterladym) trying to do damage control.
  • EA has lost me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:10PM (#25141725)
    I'm sure there are a lot of potential customers who, like me, didn't really know much about Spore, but did end up hearing a lot about how it's a pain-in-the-ass because of the DRM. As a result, I don't think I'll ever spend any money on this, since the lion's share of what I've heard is that it's tightly controlled.
  • by skis ( 920891 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:10PM (#25141729)
    Where's the command and control center of my computer? I don't remember putting that in there!
  • by Sasayaki ( 1096761 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:11PM (#25141739)

    If I ever sold anything to EA I'd make sure to put in the EULA somewhere that I get to crack them in the face with a lump of wood then key their car. When the cops arrive, assuming they don't shoot me out of hand, I will simply say that I am preforming services for which I was paid- and present them the EULA detailing as much.

    I mean, that's effectively what they're doing. EA are selling one piece of software but not disclosing that it comes with a second, potentially damaging, piece of software which I Do Not Want(tm).

  • BS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qoncept ( 599709 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:14PM (#25141793) Homepage
    What a BS summary of the article. I generally don't RTFA but this time I did, and it revealed a seedy-as-I've-ever-seen summary. People aren't getting banned for talking about DRM. They are being banned for being jackasses when they talk about DRM.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ironwill96 ( 736883 )

      Still, this raises another point. If they ban you from the forums, should they also be able to ban you from playing a game that you legally purchased?

      I know Spore has online sharing features to share the creatures people create, but other than that isn't it inherently a single-player game? This sets a bad precedent to stifle complaints by banning you from playing their game and making you fork over more money to the company. Sounds like another reason not to support EA's business practices by gracing the

    • Re:BS (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:24PM (#25141993)

      What a BS summary of the article. I generally don't RTFA but this time I did, and it revealed a seedy-as-I've-ever-seen summary. People aren't getting banned for talking about DRM. They are being banned for being jackasses when they talk about DRM.

      Correct. It's way too sensationalist. The moderator (who was obviously just fed up but spoke out of line) was threatening to ban people for starting flame wars on the forums, but the official response:

      "We are happy to support healthy exchanges on the forums. And people will only get banned for breaking the rules. Discussing DRM is not breaking the rules - and as long as it is a civil conversation, it's cool with us," said "Maxislucky".

      Much less dramatic, no? I know DRM is nasty, but any sort of credibility of news reporting is lost when this happens. Maybe I'm becoming more aware of it, or maybe it's happening more and more. It's hard to say...

  • Wrong word (Score:5, Interesting)

    by psiphiorg ( 566033 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:15PM (#25141815) Homepage Journal

    Several times in the PDF, the word "uninstallable" is used. However, it is used incorrectly. If the program actually were "uninstallable", then one of two things would be the case: (1) you would be able to uninstall it, or (2) you would not be able to install it.

    Neither of these is the case. I believe the word the author was looking for was "ununinstallable", meaning that it could not be uninstalled.

    Let's hope the lawsuit is undismissable because of this typo.


    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by scubamage ( 727538 )
      Usually in a case like this the defense will point that out and attempt to get a dismissal. The judge will respond in kind, "this was an error in form, but the defense understands what meaning was meant to be expressed." - or something like that. Basically the judge tells the defense not to quibble over a grammatical error, since the meaning is spelled out throughout the entire complaint numerous times. Trying to get a dismissal based on a single error in word choice would be a non-sequitor because it doesn
  • by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:21PM (#25141941) Homepage Journal
    Just mercilessly crack every protection SecuROM employs, they're not that difficult. Irritating yes, but fairly trivial. Yes, implement Q-channel cloning in InfraRecorder. Yes, implement a very slow reverse-seek twin sector search, or a faster forward-sector position scan to detect twin sectors (they have to skip a sector, which indicates a hidden twin). Yes, simply mung the SecuROM wrapper and make it always fail open. Pirating the game isn't a great goal, but embarrassing the anti-piracy software maker is a clear necessity.
  • by Zombie Ryushu ( 803103 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:24PM (#25141991)

    Boycotts don't work in this industry. They never have. The closest things to a successful boycott was the Mortal Kombat issue between the Sega Genesis and Super NES. Which was easily corrected by the time Mortal Kombat 2 rolled around.

  • by alisson ( 1040324 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @04:49PM (#25142445)

    My loathing of DRM software is clashing horribly with my abhorrence of class-action lawsuits! What ever shall I do??

    I guess I'll go play Spore until I decide.

  • This doesn't work! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by micron ( 164661 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @05:04PM (#25142763)

    I purchased Spore ( The Galactic edition ) from Amazon on September 8th, for overnight delivery.

    I could not get it installed. After 11 days of going back and forth with EA tech support, EA informed me that they assigned the software key to someone else on September 7th. EA's solution, "return the software to my place of purchase".

    Sounds great, but companies such as EA have told vendors not to take returns on software that is no longer in the shrinkwrap.

    I have pointed out to EA that the only viable solution is for them to issue me a new key.

    I have heard nothing from EA on this since Saturday.

    Maybe it is time to fire up the lawyers. EA took my money, and has not given me a product in exchange.

    • by Khyber ( 864651 )

      Add federal hacking charges in as well - SecuROM usurps your Admin privileges and creates files and folders that you cannot delete even in super-root.

  • by doti ( 966971 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @05:31PM (#25143273) Homepage

    It's a pity that id will publish Rage [wikipedia.org] with EA.

  • by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @06:46PM (#25144365) Homepage Journal
    Unless I read wrong and my google search says otherwise, they are taking Securerom out of Spore. I don't know if mine had SecureRom or not. I had heard that Spore's SecureRom would not even let you play if it detected a ISO loader on the system. I have or at least had at the time Daemon Tools, but Spore loaded and played just fine. I didn't even have to have the CD in the drive to play it. Now I haven't tried anything like making a copy of the game and installing from that, but then I have never done that with any other game either.
    Also, I got lucky in that the Spore patch wouldn't load on my computer, it just sits there spinning forever saying it is patching files. However, this turns out to be a good thing as about 1/3 of people's games are dead in the water after the patch.
  • by Dan667 ( 564390 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @06:48PM (#25144397)
    I hope that everyone that bought Spore joins this lawsuit. Any additional revenue that EA thought they were going to get from the DRM (and that is a big if) has more than been eclipsed by what they are getting ready to pay their lawyers. Hitting EA in the pocketbook is a sure fire way to get them to change their policies and get rid of DRM all together.
  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @07:08PM (#25144679)

    I think its more than reasonable for people to assume that the law would protect them from a commercially available product that is designed to subversively hurt them.

    If by design some software silently installs itself and modifies the operating system in any way purposely disadvantageous to the user without the users express permission, then it is absolutely the dictionary definition of malware, as in software with malicious intent.

    Why should there be a distinction between big companies doing it for commercial reasons or individual hackers doing it? Writers of malware apps should always be punished for unauthorised damage to other people's computer systems. period. Actually big companies should be much more strongly punished as it generally a much larger-scale crime, given the sheer number of users they infect.

    That British hacker who got into the pentagon to look for UFO evidence ended up facing extradition, jail time and enormous costs for supposed damage to a few systems, even though he didn't actually change anything. Why is it that EA who subversively plant malware on your PC that permanently occupies resources and damages your access rights can get away with it?

  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @08:49PM (#25145709) Journal

    "Please do not continue to post these threads or you account may be at risk of banning, which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."

    Nice. Shut up or we'll unilaterally take away the game that you bought. Captures the essence of DRM quite well.

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"