Will Wright: EA Pushed for Spore DRM

Will Wright says EA provided the push to include DRM in Spore, "It was a corporate decision."

Though EA CEO John Riccitiello recently told Gamasutra he personally "hates" the whole DRM concept - specifically, "it can be a bit cumbersome" - Wright claims the decision to implement strict copy protection measures in Spore came primarily from the publisher. Hate is a potent word indeed; but it seems such feelings can be easily overlooked, when it comes to protecting one's assets from the effects of software piracy.

"It was something I probably should have tuned into more," Wright said yesterday in an interview with Kotaku. "It was a corporate decision to go with DRM on Spore. They had a plan and the parameters, but now we're allowing more authentications and working with players to de-authenticate, which makes it more in line like an iTunes."

Sales of Spore have done well regardless, but the immediate backlash from players over the game's DRM was substantial. The vitriol was potent enough to cause EA to step back to reassess the situation and loosen the leash a bit.

"I think one of the most valid concerns about it was you could only install it so many times," said Wright about the effect DRM had on players in regards to the game. "For most players it's not an issue, it's a pretty small percentage, but some people do like wiping their hard disk and installing it 20 times or they want to play it 10 years later."

Permalink

I still don't get where they get off saying that "it's a small percentage" of players who are going to want to have more than three installs on a game they buy. If it's SUCH a small percent, then why was there such a big backlash? *mumbles under breath*

A "small percentage" (assuming that's true) still takes it away from being "100%" - so sort that shit out you idiots. Obviously, you underestimate the power of the people, and word of mouth.

How about this, EA gets down from their high-horse and admits that they ****ed up?

I like how this game has become the fastest pirated game (it had nearly 1,000,000 downloads by Oct. 1st according to TorrentFreak, just one week after managing to sell 1,000,000 legit copies) ever, despite its stringent DRM policy.

Also, I already called Riccitiello out in that last article. Here's looking at you, kid!

I wouldn't blame Will Wright. He just wants his game to be made. The Sims had a lot of success from EA's publishing it. Why would he change that up? Okay, so EA had some different rules this time around, but they also wanted Spore to be as popular as the Sims (only this time, they wanted everyone to buy it. Twice, if needed).

Khell_Sennet:
Will Wright let them include it and he gets just as much blame in my books as EA does.

I don't blame Wright for DRM and really neither should you. Fighting with a company that is paying you money for a product is generally not a good idea, especially given that said company will be responsible for distributing product to the general masses.

It's not Wills fault. You can't bite the hand that feeds.

It's up to us to save him.

Are you kidding me? Game developers shouldn't have to be paragons of morality. I mean, put yourself in a developer's shoes: The publishing company hands you a big pile of money and tells you it'll be even bigger, because they're putting DRM on it, so more people will buy the game (which we now know is the complete opposite of what happens). Who are you to disagree? You can't just take their money and tell them to go fuck themselves. That's part of the agreement. I also seriously doubt that Will Wright is "the" money maker for EA. Look at EA Sports, who hit gold years ago by repacking the same game every year. They've got a deal with Valve now too. EA knows how to make money. They've done it by angering their consumer base, but the reality is that they control enough of the market that the trendy gamer can't afford to boycott them and still play the popular games. We'd all like to say that if we were famous video game developers, we wouldn't let EA push around. But frankly, anyone who isn't getting pushed around by EA is getting pushed around by Activision.

TsunamiWombat:
It's not Wills fault. You can't bite the hand that feeds.

It's up to us to save him.

Actually, if a developer and designer of the stature of Will Wright told EA to jump, they'd probably at least hop a bit. Will could go literally anywhere at any time and make fantastic games (might have to stop using the "Sim" name, but I'm sure he could work up another title). EA depends on him a hell of a lot more than he depends on them. So, yes, we can blame Will to a certain extent, if only for apathy. He probably also didn't push FOR any DRM and just trusted EA to do things right, which is a mistake no matter how you look at it. EA doing something right is like a politician being honest... it's theoretically possible, but kind of hard to conceive.

You can blame Will Wright for EA the same way you can blame a soldier who was "just following orders" for committing a war crime. Sid Meier went off and founded his own company because all he had to do is put "Sid Meier's _______" as the title of one of his games and publishers would line up at his door. You can't tell me Will Wright couldn't go off, found his own studio, and get just as many sales licensing his games to Valve or Stardock or Paradox/GamersGate or even to EA with a strict no-DRM provision in the contract.

Since he's an employee of EA he doesn't have any say in company policy but the fact remains there's no plausible reason he should be working for the Riccitiello Mafia at this point. Follow Sid! Follow Gabe Newell! Just don't blame your overlord when you're a willing soldier in the empire.

SimuLord:
You can blame Will Wright for EA the same way you can blame a soldier who was "just following orders" for committing a war crime. Sid Meier went off and founded his own company because all he had to do is put "Sid Meier's _______" as the title of one of his games and publishers would line up at his door. You can't tell me Will Wright couldn't go off, found his own studio, and get just as many sales licensing his games to Valve or Stardock or Paradox/GamersGate or even to EA with a strict no-DRM provision in the contract.

Since he's an employee of EA he doesn't have any say in company policy but the fact remains there's no plausible reason he should be working for the Riccitiello Mafia at this point. Follow Sid! Follow Gabe Newell! Just don't blame your overlord when you're a willing soldier in the empire.

You've chosen some pretty funny people to identify as anti-EA success stories. And you don't have any idea of what Wright's relationship with EA is.

Wright did found a company. He founded Maxis. That's still the company he works for. It's just that Maxis was a financial failure by the end of the century, in part due to the fact that being a one trick pony (ie. SimWhatever) doesn't make a successful publisher. So EA bought them, in part because they were already publishing all of Maxis' games for the PC. They're still a developer, but now they don't have to worry about publishing games, because EA covers that for them.

Likewise, Valve has cut a deal with EA to publish their games (see Left4Dead). So if he left EA to get Valve to publish his games (Valve's not a publisher, by the by. Gabe Newell is a software guy. Steam is software that distributes other software), EA would still publish the hard copy. The difference would be that in order to play Spore, you'd need Steam.

Likewise, Sid Meier's Firaxis Games is also a subsidiary company. It is also just a developer. It doesn't publish it's games. Before it was bought by Take2, EA used to publish Firaxis Games' products. Now 2K handles that, but that's because they're the publishing arm of Take2. Oh, and EA tried to buy Take2 (they still might, when Take2 goes under).

Finally, in reference to Stardock and Paradox/Gamersgate, two of my favorite publishers. They're good, sure. But Paradox's main publishing arm is Gamersgate, and let's face it, people aren't entirely ready to give up their hardcopy yet. I bought an EU3 hardcopy, and then discovered that NA and IN were digital only. I sat on the fence for quite a while before actually buying the games through Gamersgate. Meanwhile, Stardock's not exactly a game publisher. It's an application publisher. It's only had one game that reached true success: Sins of a Solar Empire. So Wright probably wouldn't want to leave EA for some small podunk third party publisher. Would you, if you'd experienced the massive distribution power that EA can bring into play? I mean, Stardock didn't exactly over advertise for SINS. I didn't hear about it until Penny Arcade mentioned it.

The soldier analogy was so pretentious that there's no need to respond to it except to point out the obvious: Game Developers are pretty goddamn far from soldiers. They're businessmen, not gun-toting warriors.

While it's true that developers are in business and soldiers are not, both are contractually subject to orders, and both are considered to be responsible for their actions if they obey illegal or unethical orders.

Will Wright, if he decided to tell EA to stick it, would have other developers knocking down his door to hire him. That's a flat out fact. He's one of the biggest and best known developers around, and has very little of the negative baggage some other devs have (he's not, for example, known for being an arrogant prick). If Will left EA for, as an example, Stardock, Stardock would be in a position to become something other than a "small podunk third party publisher". Devs like Will attract success. In this kind of situation, he has a certain amount of power to influence EA, and he chose not to use it. Probably, as he said, because he really didn't pay as close attention to what was going on as he should have rather than due to any kind of malice. He's not responsible for anything except inaction, which is bad enough. So he does have to shoulder a portion of the blame, not as much as EA execs do, but some.

Finally, in reference to Stardock and Paradox/Gamersgate, two of my favorite publishers. They're good, sure. But Paradox's main publishing arm is Gamersgate, and let's face it, people aren't entirely ready to give up their hardcopy yet. I bought an EU3 hardcopy, and then discovered that NA and IN were digital only. I sat on the fence for quite a while before actually buying the games through Gamersgate. Meanwhile, Stardock's not exactly a game publisher. It's an application publisher. It's only had one game that reached true success: Sins of a Solar Empire. So Wright probably wouldn't want to leave EA for some small podunk third party publisher. Would you, if you'd experienced the massive distribution power that EA can bring into play? I mean, Stardock didn't exactly over advertise for SINS. I didn't hear about it until Penny Arcade mentioned it.

True, Stardock's not exactly a major-league publisher, but if they were to pick up a high-profile developer like Wright (or Sid Meier, if 2K or a post-takeover EA did enough to convince him to take his creations elsewhere) it's not exactly a leap of the imagination to see them becoming a big player and moving a lot more units---hell, Sins was a breakout hit and there's no good way to tell what effect that'll have on business going forward but I bet it's a positive one.

As far as Pdox/GamersGate, they're always going to suffer from people's nervousness about digital distribution, but they're also a house that publishes the sorts of games that attract a small but very dedicated following. Not sure what effect that'd have if they published a game of Spore's caliber, but it is noteworthy that you can get Civ4Col minus the SecuROM DRM if you get it through GamersGate rather than buying it in a store. As the DRM controversy heats up that's going to be an advantage for Pdox (and Stardock too, for that matter.)

Khell_Sennet:
Einstein carries blame for the atomic bomb, it was the US Government who dropped it, but it was Einstein's project. I don't care if it was EA who pushed for the DRM, Will Wright let them include it and he gets just as much blame in my books as EA does.

Einstein was never involved in the atomic bomb project. Yes, his Theory of Relativity was put to use on it, but he was never involved and publicly decried the use of the bombs on Japan. Which kinda puts your argument in Hiroshima, 1945. Do your homework.

Khell_Sennet:

PumpItUp:
Einstein was never involved in the atomic bomb project.

Yes and no. Einstein got the Manhattan project started, urging the government into researching atomic power. That, plus his other scientific research paved the way for splitting the atom.

As to doing homework, fuck that. I'm living proof you can go through grades 1-12 doing little more than showing up, and still earn a B-average.

I still don't blame Einstein for the fact that the bomb was dropped. He partially started research that led to the bomb being created, which was then dropped by a third party, and suddenly he's responsible for Hiroshima?

Wow, wow, wow! Didnt Willy-boy just stated a month ago or so that DRM was implemented to battle piracy and because they felt that it will encourage ppl to pirate the game if they dont, and some other garbage like that?

On the topic: They used DRM. It does not matter whos idea it was. Deed is done and results are in. People hated the fact to the point where some refused to buy it (and actually pirated it instead, working crack took only 3 or 4 days to develop DRM or not). So yeah, no point in trying to shift the blame now.