EA Makes Changes To Spore DRM

In response to ongoing consumer anger over the punitive copy protection scheme in Spore, Electronic Arts has made some changes to the game to loosen things up - just a little bit.

A report in the Los Angeles Times says EA has apologized for the harsh DRM contained in Spore, which led to a flood of complaints from buyers who felt their use of the game was being unfairly restricted. Gamers were limited to installing the game on only three computers, and were restricted to only one account per copy, meaning families could not play completely separate games on a shared computer despite a statement in the manual saying it was possible. In response, various Spore forums were hammered with complaints, while the game's listing on Amazon was bombed by hundreds of users who gave it a one-star rating. (Currently, Spore at Amazon has managed to climb up to a 1.5 star rating, over nearly 3000 customer reviews.)

EA's initial response had been to hunker down and ride out the storm, but now the company appears to be changing its tune, albeit slightly. "We've received complaints from a lot of customers who we recognize and respect," said EA Games President Frank Gibeau in response to the furor. "We need to adapt our policy to accommodate our legitimate consumers."

As a result, EA said it will boost the install limit to five computers, and will also allow players to transfer the game an unlimited number of times, as long as the game isn't installed on more than five computers at the same time; depending on the circumstances, people will be allowed to exceed that limit when appropriate. The company also revealed plans last week for a patch that will allow game accounts to support multiple screen names, a step toward correcting complaints about playing the game on a shared PC.

Despite the changes, Gibeau defended the original DRM setup, implying that there was nothing unreasonable about it in the first place, and that EA was being treated unfairly by a tiny minority of gamers. "We assumed that consumers understand piracy is a huge problem," he said. "We have found that 75 percent of our consumers install and play any particular game on only one machine, and less than one percent ever try to play on more than three different machines."

via: GamePolitics

Permalink

Despite the changes, Gibeau defended the original DRM setup, implying that there was nothing unreasonable about it in the first place

Surely there's nothing unreasonable about paying full price for a game and ending up merely *renting* it, right? ...Yeah, *right*. I'm sure he'd understand if people came round to his house to take away everything he'd bought more than twelve months ago. I'm sure he'd have something to say about *that*.

and that EA was being treated unfairly by a tiny minority of gamers.

EA, being treated "unfairly"? No. We just won't let them teabag us. Also, even if they were being treated unfairly...

Good.

[quote"We assumed that consumers understand piracy is a huge problem," he said.[/quote]

What's this? Shaming language? "Obviously our consumers must be idiots if they don't follow our every move like sheep... unless they're PIRATES!"

Ok, we all know why games need a DRM to prevent coping, but why add in a system that can be easily circumvented? Why punish legit players when they install the game when the DRM could have been bound to the account, like a MMO, where the key is needed to activate a new account on their severs.

They're back pedaling now to get in people's good graces, but EA really dropped the ball on this one I believe.

Malygris:
EA Makes Changes To Spore DRM

Despite the changes, Gibeau defended the original DRM setup, implying that there was nothing unreasonable about it in the first place, and that EA was being treated unfairly by a tiny minority of gamers. "We assumed that consumers understand piracy is a huge problem," he said. "We have found that 75 percent of our consumers install and play any particular game on only one machine, and less than one percent ever try to play on more than three different machines."

Only a tiny minority of gamers pirate, so why should the honest paying public be restricted with their purchase of a legitimate copy?

See what I did there EA?

Fact of the matter is that there was plenty unreasonable about the DRM in Spore. I install, de-install and re-install games quite frequently in an effort to properly manage memory and software. As an example of one of their more advanced consumer groups, the type of niche consumer that represents a driving force behind the market. This type of DRM alienates this type of usage. Which is where the problem lies.

This is hardcore spin control on EA's draconian efforts. They know they f***** up but they can't admit, which is why they the changes are the token variety at best. After Christmas I bet there will be a quiet change in the DRM strategy.

There is also the fact that this prevents second hand sales. Good for EA. In order to address piracy and SH sales I have always said that companies need to be more creative with their business and software models. EA missed the boat on this one.

personally i dont see the problem with DRM...

especially now that its up to 5...

The problem is that their DRM does nothing to stop piracy, even though they claim that's what it's for; it's intended to stop used games sales. They've already said it's a problem: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/85956

This is their solution, fed to you under the guise of 'fighting piracy'.

This is just one of those "too little, too late" kind of things.
I'm not going to pirate the game because through some twisted logic I feel I'm allowed to due to the DRM, but I'm not going to buy it either.
Maybe when it's in the bargain bin, hopefully the DRM having been completely removed by then.

hmmm least there trying to fix it, but they managed to Screw themselves, Especialy since they Plan to Release C&C Red Alert 3 with The Exact Same DRM(set up to 5)

"We assumed that consumers understand piracy is a huge problem," he said. "We have found that 75 percent of our consumers install and play any particular game on only one machine, and less than one percent ever try to play on more than three different machines."

And the award for completely missing the fucking point goes to...
*drumroll*

Electronic Arts and the dumbshit who shot his mouth off about DRM.
Congratulations EA Dumbshit, you are this year's winner. Please accept this dunce hat specially designed to accommodate the fact that you ARE pants-on-head retarded.

Seriously!
It's not that we are all trying to install this on multiple PCs, its that as responsible computer users we do at times format and upgrade our systems, and each reinstall considers itself a new computer. I've installed Total Annihilation over 100 times to date, over five computers, but never more than one at a time. It is my RIGHT as a consumer to use this software on whatever PC I currently own, and for a company to restrict such rights shows their utter contempt for their customers.

Khell_Sennet:

"We assumed that consumers understand piracy is a huge problem," he said. "We have found that 75 percent of our consumers install and play any particular game on only one machine, and less than one percent ever try to play on more than three different machines."

And the award for completely missing the fucking point goes to...
*drumroll*

Electronic Arts and the dumbshit who shot his mouth off about DRM.
Congratulations EA Dumbshit, you are this year's winner. Please accept this dunce hat specially designed to accommodate the fact that you ARE pants-on-head retarded.

Seriously!
It's not that we are all trying to install this on multiple PCs, its that as responsible computer users we do at times format and upgrade our systems, and each reinstall considers itself a new computer. I've installed Total Annihilation over 100 times to date, over five computers, but never more than one at a time. It is my RIGHT as a consumer to use this software on whatever PC I currently own, and for a company to restrict such rights shows their utter contempt for their customers.

Didn't it also say that we can have unlimited transfers of the game? So as long as we uninstall it we can install it again. We just can't have six computer using it all at once. As long as this works and we can uninstall and reinstall it all we want I'm happy enough.

Though they did still miss the point. But they only missed it by a little bit.

Yeah but you've gotta do all this online activation/deactivation bullshit and end up having to call EA's support, etc. etc.

I think EA is missing the point here. It really wasn't about how many PC's you could install the game on, it was about the fact that you were restricted to only having one account accociated with the one copy of the game, which for legitimate players, is a pain.

But thankfully they have seen the light, and hopefully they will take a better outlook on future products.

File under "important if true". EA has taken the ultra-restrictive DRM and replaced it with...ultra-restrictive DRM.

And really, that guy's got brass balls to say "we assumed our customers..." That's taking 'being an arrogant asshole' to entirely new levels.

I've been a PC gamer for over 15 years now, and I hate the way these mega media companies treat my community as though we were a bunch of criminals. EA needs to take a page out of Stardock's playbook and combat piracy by releasing GOOD games. Sins of a Solar Empire has sold over half a million copies (a huge hit by PC standards) and has nary a lick of DRM anywhere in the program. You can install the game from the disc packed in the box as many times as you please, and don't even need the disc to run it. Stardock takes a huge crap on any argument these EA types claim about falling game sales as a result of piracy.

When EA delivers a piece of crap game that provides a mere few hours of poor gameplay and tries to pawn it off for $50 (and now $60!) in the marketplace, it almost seems like the natural market reaction is for consumers to attempt to procure the game for what they believe it to be worth. The invisible hand of the market is simply giving EA a bitch slap square across the face, and EA better shape up because the invisible hand is likely to get drunk again if EA don't start putting out.

Would have joined in complaints...if I cared whether my family wanted to play Spore or not...

Yeah, Spore bashing is justly deserved for now. I'm letting my game collect dust whilst waiting for some fixes/expansions. The potential was, and is still there, but the complaints outweigh it.

Also, this is another testament to the impossible nature of blocking piracy for PC games. Wonder if I'll see it stop in my lifetime?

bittman:
Wonder if I'll see it stop in my lifetime?

Don't hold your breath.

In a way, that's a good thing, though. Consumers need some way to keep publishers in check.

Malygris:

Despite the changes, Gibeau defended the original DRM setup, implying that there was nothing unreasonable about it in the first place, and that EA was being treated unfairly by a tiny minority of gamers. "We assumed that consumers understand piracy is a huge problem," he said. "We have found that 75 percent of our consumers install and play any particular game on only one machine, and less than one percent ever try to play on more than three different machines."

Isn't this one of the few times that Godwin's Law can be accurately used?
I mean, you mind telling me HOW you found that 75% of your customers did that? And why that makes ANY difference to the fact that you made a lack-lustre game with a security system that Fort Knox would say "Steady on lads!"

If you'd actually brought out the game you've been raving about for n years instead of Dr. Seuss's Guide To Evoloution; then maybe people wouldn't be uninstalling it so often?

In what other business do you say "Fuck you!" to 1% of your consumers anyway?

I follow two rules for PC gaming: 1) I will buy all original and quality games, and 2) I will only install those without DRM. Therefore, Spore sits on my shelf waiting for someone, maybe EA or maybe someone in a dorm--I don't care which--to release an anti-securom patch that will let me get all the online content.

Well, at least I won't feel to bad if my little sister badgers me to buy it for her

Wait, wait, wait...wait. So, EA craps on the consumer again, puts out a mediocre game, and then blames any backlash on the people who bought the game. Sounds like business as usual at EA.

Well, I seem to be in the minority here, but I'm perfectly happy with the revamped DRM here. 5 simultaneous installs is enough (Unlike 3...I have 3 computers myself, all capable of running Spore, but what if my roommate wants to play it?).

My huuuuge gripe with it initially is the fact that you could not see how many activations you have used, and cannot recover them once they are used up. The ability to manage your own activations, so that it can be installed on an infinite number of machines...just 5 at a time...it perfectly reasonable. EA did wrong, but EA is making right. (They're still assholes for thinking it was reasonable in the first place, but that's a whole other topic. They have seriously stepped up their releases, though...)

Edit: Is this coming to Mass Effect too? I know it's for Spore and Crysis Warhead, but I'd love it if they'd do it for ME PC

Well EA have actually done the impossible,made me hate them more.......