Time to stick my hand into the angry beehive again… The EA/Spore/DRM issue isn’t likely to go away any time soon. In a funny sort of way, the ridiculous DRM on Spore might well turn out to be a good thing for gamers – like it or not, EA’s weight in the industry means they’re trend-setters to some degree. That a company so big attempted the sort of draconian copy-protection that only smaller publishers had hithero dabbled in, and crucially they now seem to realise it was a mistake, may well set a positive precedent for everyone. So, while I initially decried the mass trolling of Amazon reviews, I have to agree now that a game as high-profile as Spore was perhaps an ideal object for protest. I’d still much prefer it was gone about in a smarter way than fevered screaming, though.
Though EA aren’t behaving in terribly gentlemanly fashion towards DRM-complaint posts on their forums, they are gradually backing down from some of the restrictions they unfairly placed upon Spore installs, and it looks like that trend’s set to continue.
They’ve already increased the number of activations allowed, while the next patch will allow more usernames per copy of Spore, which should ease the problems of multiple family members playing the same copy of the game at least a little bit. There’s also talk of iTunes-esque PC activation/deactivation at the user’s end – not much use in the event of a hard drive fail, but will help delay the pleading phonecall to EA’s reauthorisation helpline.
Now they’re even admitting to something that we all know, but some of its developers (helloooooo Crytek) don’t seem to: that a Bitorrented copy of a game doesn’t always equate to lost cash. Via Softpedia, EA corporate communicatiosn bod Mariam Sughayer:
“Stepping aside from the whole issue of DRM, people need to recognize that every BitTorrent download doesn’t represent a successful copy of a game, let alone a lost sale.”
Clearly, there’s so much resentment towards what EA did with Spore that some folk will simply never trust ‘em again, and of course this isn’t anything like the total DRM-removal we’d like to see, so it’s not enough to ease all the hurt. But c’mon, it’s a positive step: even if it’s not an outright admission of failure, it’s one of the biggest game companies in the world realising harsh copy protection is a bad idea, and that can only set a precedent for the wider industry. Softpedia also reckons we can expect more community features from EA to counter-piracy – i.e. the kind of stuff that’s worked out well for Steam and Stardock. O brave new world?
(Waits for EA to do something else really bloody stupid and blow the goodwill all over again).
Related Stories:
@DosFreak:
As opposed to not getting mentioned EVER in any reviews. I know which one I prefer.
So you live in a binary world. Good for you. That’s irrelevant in a world where there are more than 0s and 1s.
So the game doesn’t have any issues with Daemon Tools or the like? No problems with process explorer? It doesn’t cause your explorer to crash or right-click to take forever to load up or the inability to delete 16bit files due to the SECUROM shell extension? This is all part of the game and as such should be reviewed right along with it. (I don’t know if the above affects SPORE like it did with all of the other SECUROM infected games)
Here’s a fun fact about computer software – technical issues are a case by case scenario. Your problems with Spore are not global. They *may* appear in other people’s systems, but they may not. Not everyone uses Daemon Tools, for instance, and I’ve repeatedly asked people who have bought Spore about similar issues – some have them, some don’t. Propaganda that makes it seem everyone will have problems the exact same problems with Spore is just that, propaganda.
Which should tell them something. The potential customers (oopps, [b]Consumers[/b]) or ex-consumers are complaining about DRM because it affects them. The copyright infringers don’t give a crap about the DRM. The “casual” users don’t give a crap about the DRM (yet). The enthusiasts are the ones who give a crap about DRM which is why they commented on it.
And if you’d make an effort to read my posts, instead of jumping in blindfolded, you’d have read the part where I’ve stated that I agree people should warn of technical issues with the DRM – my main quibble is that there are for more sensible approaches instead of NERD RAGE.
Good luck with that. FOX news may accept Joe Blow off the street to bash EA. MABYE.
And we certainly know who to thank for not having anyone capable of defending the videogame medium and alert people to situations like these, don’t we? We have had major voices of protest in the past in relation to politics, music, the film industry and so on – our “voice” is nowhere to be heard, but people gladly support outright bashing of a game on Amazon by anonymous people (without any proof of correlation and causation between them) instead of generating concerned groups to defend the cause.
Yes, that’s just the way to do it. Spend a huge assload of money to fight DRM whereas before you’d spend a potentially smaller amount of money on DRM infected games (that you would then crack) but you kept your mouth shut. It’s not suprising that people would go for the latter option.
Because as we know, it’s not with sacrifice that people fight for their rights and make themselves heard. Good heavens. If at least someone had told minorities and women that instead of protesting on the streets, suffering humiliation and whatnot – they could have just waited until someone did their job for them.
Are you serious? This is the internet age. Internet sales are taking over from retail. Protesting at your local Best Buy isn’t going to do jack except get you arrested.
And what kind of success did the Amazon protest had, when, at the time of this writing, Amazon.com claims Spore is #18 in sales ranks, making it one of the Bestsellers in Video Games.
Spore just came out. Your above examples have been around for YEARS. ALOT of people have heard about Amazon and Spore in a very small amount of time.
Coincidentally, DRM has also been around for YEARS. Why is it only a concern now? Because it’s more draconian? Because people aren’t willing to fight against it in a way that demands more personal investment? Because gamers have developed this freak sense of entitlement? Whatever the answer, concerns about the rights of videogamers and the need to validate the medium in a number of issues has been around for years. No one gave a rat’s ass. If you didn’t complain back then, what does it say about your right to complain now?
Not sure where your going with this one. It’s a good thing that there is “something for everybody” in reviews. The publisher AND the developer should be negatively reviewed for crippling their product.
Of course, we should always blame those who are not the culprits. How callous of me to think otherwise.
None of that will get people to do jack. The only way to get people interested is to hit them where it hurts. Family/Money/Time. That’s about it.
Since the average users is lazy as hell then they aren’t going to take the TIME to research a product. TIME=MONEY. Now if they did research the product and realized the MONEYTIME involved in calling EA then perhaps they wouldn’t purchase the product. As for FAMILY there isn’t much you can do for this as far as games are concerned unless when your purchasing a game you realize the pain and frustration that DRM would cause them.
And I’m not arguing against any of that. I’m arguing against exactly how to go about it.
@dhex:
it seems like it certainly contributed, no?
Quite likely. Question is, was this the only way? Couldn’t a method where people pointed out the issue vehemently – but not aggressively and disrespectfuly towards the developer – work? Couldn’t this have been made in a way to give EA – rather than Spore – bad word of mouth?
Everyone that tells me “no” still hasn’t pointed out “why”.
well, it’s the easiest, most decentralized way of doing things, beyond whatever kind of customer complaints may have piled in. i don’t like activations at all – to the point where it may sway my purchase of a game – but i’m not going to be piling on clear sky and gsc (or deep silver, or valve) on amazon any time soon, despite it so far having been an unrunnable, buggy and overall a total pee on my head experience.
the amazon thing was not very nice, but many consumers obviously feel that activations are invasive or otherwise objectionable. this particular method, uncouth though it was, is clearly effective.
when you run a software company – i’m speaking solely from a pr standpoint right now – that has direct communication channels to monitor, both sponsored and external, that it is often an excellent window into what the vocal segment of your customer base thinks of you and your practices. it will never be the kind of thing you can take home to mom but customer relations are never gussied up for thanksgiving dinner. it’s not supposed to be pretty.
If you didn’t complain back then, what does it say about your right to complain now?
Uh, not much as far as I’m aware, people are always free to bitch as they want. I’m not really sure what your issue with the whole Amazon thing is. Was it that there were better ways that the protest could’ve been carried out? That a good developer had their name tarnished? That a decent game (judging by the reviews, haven’t played it myself) lost out on sales that it deserved because of this whole debacle?
Quite likely. Question is, was this the only way? Couldn’t a method where people pointed out the issue vehemently – but not aggressively and disrespectfuly towards the developer – work? Couldn’t this have been made in a way to give EA – rather than Spore – bad word of mouth?
Everyone that tells me “no” still hasn’t pointed out “why”.
Yep sure there are probably better ways (what I don’t know), but this is the one they came up with and it seems to have worked ok.
Alec Meer says:
Be civil, Grumpy, or be deleted.
Grumpy didn’t start the name calling tho did he? O_o
@dhex:
Sure, I can empathize with that. Ever since the Spore debacle, I’ve said that I agree with protesting. Hell, ideally, Amazon is a pretty good target and an effective one. But there’s this feeling that being vocal is quite different than being abusive.
I’m the kind of costumer that tries to read as much as he can on a videogame I’m interested in – including Amazon reviews. But while I can sort the soy from the kaf (oh, me and my outdated and not-so-funny Shadowrun jokes…), and could sense that those reviews were more than they seemed, casual and average gamers can’t. They’ll read between a handful and a couple of dozens and be taken aback. While there was a conscious effort on behalf of some of the reviewers, for the most part we’re dealing with a “me too” approach – that of wanting to manifest against abusive costumer relations, comptent for the consumer, the will to protest. Which would be fine in itself were it not its utter lack of balance, and that many do little to distinguish themselves between informed rant and irate troublemaking.
One of my fondest memories of gaming was when me and a couple of friends managed to close down an arcade next to school. We’d spend some time there, but we noticed irregularities. We took the time to get as much information as we could, then actually took the time to visit the responsbile authorities and expose our case. Two months later, it closed down on accounts of age irregularities and tampering with machines. No whining, no aggravation, just an honest desire not to see gamers exploited. Maybe I’m being terribly influenced from personal experience and that there needs to be a balance in all things rather than outright hostility. Or maybe – hell, we can do something for ourselves without either letting others do it in a way that makes us look annoying children, or in a way that protects our interests without letting our NERD RAGE possibly affect gamer perception of reality and developers who rarely (if ever) have no say over publishers’ decisions.
@n3utr0n:
To the first, yes to all three.
To the second, true, but that does not excuse the aggressiveness and poor judgement. And besides, is that the standard we want to set for ourselves?
Amazon is a pretty good target and an effective one. But there’s this feeling that being vocal is quite different than being abusive.
it’s different in face to face communication; less so in this arena.
i don’t think people would be half as mad – perhaps – if the back cover said “XXX DRM – Internet Activation Required” or “This Game Features Limited Activation Security Checks – see http://www.ea.com/limitedactivations for more information.”
this, of course, will happen after pigs start flying.
@dhex:
Quite true. And that’s the thing – in no way am I sympathetic to EA’s misgivings towards the consumers, although I think our side blew it out of proportion a notch.
Still, coming clean with gamers is an ever-growing necessity. It’s lamentable that the protest could not have been more civil – and I *hope* Spore doesn’t suffer with this in the long run, or future games and their developers – but certainly, I won’t cry if the DRM trend is bucked. Breaking eggs, making omeletes, and all that stuff.
@Diogo Ribeiro
Thats the point. People were being vocal about something that was included in a product they were buying. A feature in the product that was not disclosed by EA.
If people stated “Theres a DRM on the game that does *this* and *that* – I wouldn’t buy it due to this”
Thats a fair review of part of the product that may deter customers from buying the product – if they knew about it.
Its giving the reader a choice. They can choose whether or not to buy it, in light of the DRM.
If a review goes on to mention “the game is fun, etc etc but has a DRM” – good, it gives the reader more perspective on the choice.
A game review could simply be “Don’t buy it, it sucks”.
Though not very useful or descriptive, its a review. Thats the reviewers choice, and most people would overlook such a basic comment.
I know if I was looking into buying a game and saw some reviews stating “Don’t buy, sucks”, I’d look for another review.
The reviewers did not lie. If they lied to bash EA just for being EA, then fair enough, thats wrong, but they bashed EA for sneaking a limitation into their product that had already had many complaints about – which in turn ruined the reviewers experience of the game.
That little orange cells looks so much like my little cell that for a good 35 seconds I was so excited because I thought it was mine. In fact, I’m going to continue to pretend that it is. Hooray me!
Well I’ve decided not to pre-order any more PC games from now on.
I’ve been caught out three times so far with limited activation DRM that was disclosed after I’d ordered the game, and in the case of Warhead was disclosed on the day of release – far too late to cancel my order.
From now on I’ll be waiting until at least a week after release to see if there’s any invasive DRM or other issues (like the appalling bugs in Clear Sky).
I was very interested in Dead Space but I doubt I’ll be purchasing it if it has any activation limits. My DRM tolerance threshold has been passed.
@Cataclysm:
As I’ve said before, I have no problem with reviews which mention DRM. It is, after all, potentially damaging (although not universally so), and if the reviewer suspects it may deter others from buying it due to its associated problems, that’s fine. Laudable and I encourage that. Only problem – to me, apparently, since most others seem to be fine with it – is that the only choice of information consumers had was primarily a massive number of reviews focusing on DRM alone, which barely spoke about the game, and were all rated 1. While they were doing the right thing by informing others of DRM, and even if one could find several diverse and level-headed reviews – a review that only talks about the DRM is not entirely informative, at least in the context of talking about the game. See, many over at the RPS comment box claim that DRM was an integral part of the game and it was consumers right to talk about it. Fair enough. Problem is, Spore was also an “integral part of the game” (y’know, being THE ACTUAL GAME and all that) that simply wasn’t given that much attention by comparison. And when it was, most were blasting it not because of how Spore actually is but, once again, because “DRM ruined the game for them”.
And I have a hard time taking that as anything else as biased and, as I said before, self-serving, as it satisfied the criticizers’ needs to lower Spore’s rating rather than giving Spore, the game, a chance in spite of dreadful DRM.
Thanks EA. This make me looks less a idiot, because I have buy a legitime copy of spore :-(
“” Ed says:
Having to have the CD in the drive is great for preventing casual piracy. I think that’s enough to be honest, it’s been pretty much categorically proven that preventing ‘hardcore’ piracy is impossible (at least using this kind of DRM)…
So, use a CD check to stop people lending their CD to their friends and be done with it.”"
———————————-
Are you delusional?
No CD cracks are trivially easy to come by.
The truth is NOTHING can stop piracy if it is truly sought after except a sincere desire to support the developers of a game, and thats the way it should be.
I also commend the efforts of developers like Valve who use updates and support as a carrot to entice purchase.
Requiring a CD in the drive DOESN’T stop piracy, its just means next time I want to play a game I bought and I can’t find the disc I have to go get a NO CD crack.
People who are determined to pirate are going to find a way. Using draconian DRM and stupid CD requirements simply punish those who aren’t willing to pirate.
Diogo:
You seem to be having a hard time with the concept of a protest (to give you one dictionary definition: ‘the act of making a strong public expression of disagreement and disapproval ‘). The reviews you read on Amazon (which I have not even looked at to give you an idea of just how much I am involved with this whole thing) were not intended to be fair and balanced reviews of the game. They were, intentionally, complaining about one particular aspect of it which they found objectionable, because that’s what protestor’s do. A few paragraphs on how great the game was (or not) followed by a brief complaint about the DRM wouldn’t get anybody’s attention.
The same would be true if people were protesting outside a bricks’n'mortar game retailer. They wouldn’t be carrying banners saying ‘Spore’s a great game, but could you not include DRM next time, pretty please, EA?’ because people would laugh at them.
You want to get your protest in the mainstream media? You need to make your point loudly, clearly and effectively, and even you must be able to appreciate that that’s exactly what these people achieved. You don’t like their methods but you have precisely zero idea how to do it differently beyond email campaigns that somehow don’t involve spam, writing reviews which praise the product with a brief mention of how you don’t really like the DRM, and just, like, going out and talking to people, man. Can you not see how ridiculous this all sounds?
And what better way do you think we should have gone about it, then? As a consumer, I have very few recourses. Leaving a negative review about a product on a site that reviews products is one of the few recourses I have. And clearly a successful one. Do you think writing a polite letter and sending it through the USPS to some monkey at EA who would throw it in the trash would have gotten the same response? No, because the added weight of public visibility enhances the effect of a review online.
“Any form of criticism that actually distinguishes between Maxis’ game and EA’s DRM is alright in my book. And, you guessed it, most reviews in Amazon that I read were particularly inept at telling folks just what they were criticizing – Spore or EA.”
Not that I care what you think a proper review is, but as a customer, I am under no obligation to review every single possible aspect of a game just to decry somethign that strikes me as a major negative aspect. Further, I’m not obligated to differentiate every source of every aspect of a product. If I don’t like a car because it has horrible fuel mileage, I’m not obligated to mention that “Ford didn’t make the fuel line — they just worked with this other company that manufactures them through a third company and then Ford puts that in their finished product”.
Here is what I’m obligated to do as a reviewer and a customer — give my opinion on whatever aspects I am disapointed or satisfied with. Period. That’s it. If you want to be an apologist, then fine. And if you were talking about a journlist writing an article for Forbes and not going out of their way to point out certain aspects, then that’s one thing. I’m an average joe at home playing a game with some gripes about it leaving my thoughts on a page at Amazon. I’m not under the same obligations or given the same expectations.
As for dismissing people’s comments because everyone against DRM in this excess is some “emo kid”. Well, fuck you. I’m a 31 year old software developer with a dislike for being severely restricted from being able to use a product I’ve bought as I like.
================
Via Softpedia, EA corporate communicatiosn bod Mariam Sughayer:
“Stepping aside from the whole issue of DRM, people need to recognize that every BitTorrent download doesn’t represent a successful copy of a game, LET ALONE A LOST SALE.”
===============
THANK YOU EA! Now, please explain this to the BSA, RIAA, MPAA and every idiotic IP moron out there who believes that because I didn’t pay $2,000 for a copy of Photoshop to edit the banner for my personal website doesn’t mean that I just deprived them of $2,000.
Well said, EA!
This sort of thing would be great to hear if I could actually PLAY THE GAME. Which I can’t. Because of DRM.
So, you know. I’ve got Spore on my desk, a game I’ve been salivating over for years, and I can’t play my purchased copy of the game because EA refuses to acknowledge the complete idiocy of using this draconian DRM nonsense. So what am I left to do but pirate the game? EA’s customer service/tech support reps have been absolutely useless as expected, the patch that was released for the game does nothing to address my issue (after running the shortcut, nothing happens. The Spore exe task just sits in the background and runs runs runs), meanwhile pirates get to play a completely DRM free copy of the game.
Great job with that, EA. Forcing paying customers to pirate games they’ve already purchased, and all.
It’s not so much that there’s DRM in the first place, it’s just that this type of DRM is moribund and threatens to break your games a few years down the line. I mean look at Wal-Mart, they’re huge but they recently shut down their DRM servers. Basically when you buy a game like this you need to implicitly trust EA’s activation servers to be around for as long as you want to play the game.
@Dan Milburn:
You seem to be having a hard time with the concept of a protest (to give you one dictionary definition: ‘the act of making a strong public expression of disagreement and disapproval ‘). The reviews you read on Amazon (which I have not even looked at to give you an idea of just how much I am involved with this whole thing) were not intended to be fair and balanced reviews of the game. They were, intentionally, complaining about one particular aspect of it which they found objectionable, because that’s what protestor’s do.
Hail the concerned and intelligent gamer, with his patronizing retort and condescending attitude.
But the joke is actually not on me. I’m fine with the concept of protest. In fact, if you were not part of the deluge of one trick ponies who jump into a discussion and randomly decide to rant against someone, you’d have noticed I stated – multiple times – I support the idea of a protest against EA. However, nowhere does your quoted definition state a protest must include besmerching something’s value or name in favor of getting a point across.
The same would be true if people were protesting outside a bricks’n’mortar game retailer. They wouldn’t be carrying banners saying ‘Spore’s a great game, but could you not include DRM next time, pretty please, EA?’ because people would laugh at them.
Do all of you come from planet black and white? Or is the concerned and intelligent gamer the kind of species that only speaks in absolutes?
Seriously, you guys crack me up. You cannot try to make a valid point by ruining it with absolutely black and white morals or suggestions. What next?
“Hey Diogo, maybe they should plant flowers in every Spore copy and return – that worked great for Vietnam am i right guys lol”
Can you understand the concept of making a protest without coming off like a wanker?
You want to get your protest in the mainstream media? You need to make your point loudly, clearly and effectively, and even you must be able to appreciate that that’s exactly what these people achieved.
Let’s make a deal. Do a Ctrl+F thingie and search for this sentence:
“It’s lamentable that the protest could not have been more civil – and I *hope* Spore doesn’t suffer with this in the long run, or future games and their developers – but certainly, I won’t cry if the DRM trend is bucked.”
Then see who wrote it. In return, I promise I won’t poke fun at you. Deal?
You don’t like their methods but you have precisely zero idea how to do it differently beyond email campaigns that somehow don’t involve spam, writing reviews which praise the product with a brief mention of how you don’t really like the DRM, and just, like, going out and talking to people, man. Can you not see how ridiculous this all sounds?
Very much, yes. But for reasons you wouldn’t understand. Hint: it involves you coming late into the party. Twice.
@no:
the added weight of public visibility enhances the effect of a review online.
The added weight of public visibility enhances the effect of any action performed against them. The Amazon protest worked not because online reviews have weight, but because the target of their protest was well chosen. Different things. Amazon being an effective target does not mean it was the only one nor that other targets wouldn’t be as effective.
Not that I care what you think a proper review is
Of course not, hence why you’ll try lecturing me on it right after I finish this sentence.
but as a customer, I am under no obligation to review every single possible aspect of a game just to decry somethign that strikes me as a major negative aspect. Further, I’m not obligated to differentiate every source of every aspect of a product. If I don’t like a car because it has horrible fuel mileage, I’m not obligated to mention that “Ford didn’t make the fuel line — they just worked with this other company that manufactures them through a third company and then Ford puts that in their finished product”.
Of course you’re not obliged. In the same way, I’m not obliged to take kindly to a clearly biased review of a product or service. I’m also not obliged to exempt freedom of speech from responsability of any argument contained (or lacking) therein.
Here is what I’m obligated to do as a reviewer and a customer — give my opinion on whatever aspects I am disapointed or satisfied with. Period. That’s it.
No kidding.
If you want to be an apologist, then fine.
Good to know I have your permission. And if you want to ignore my argument – especially the one of supporting the protest – hey, I’m fine with that too. It makes me chuckle, so it’s kind of a win/win situation for me.
And if you were talking about a journlist writing an article for Forbes and not going out of their way to point out certain aspects, then that’s one thing. I’m an average joe at home playing a game with some gripes about it leaving my thoughts on a page at Amazon. I’m not under the same obligations or given the same expectations.
Because apparently, the standards for presenting balanced and unbiased information are only appliable to those who write for a living. Good thinking.
As for dismissing people’s comments because everyone against DRM in this excess is some “emo kid”. Well, fuck you. I’m a 31 year old software developer with a dislike for being severely restricted from being able to use a product I’ve bought as I like.
You also seem to be a scholar and a gentleman, to boot.
If SecuROM weren’t malware, I’d be able to judge whether the restrictions it enforces were a good deal. As it is, all the rumors regarding false positives, broken hardware, suspicious unremovable rootkits, subverting the security of your system, and the like have scared me off. I can’t find authoritative information about what this copy protection scheme does, but the integrity of my computer is important enough that I’m not going to take the risk.
No SecuROM on my computer. Period.
And the more people who know why I feel this way, the more likely it is that I won’t be punished for legitimate ownership in the future. So, I say, make some noise about it!
People protesting, in public, about DRM would get laughed at. I know, because I would laugh at them. And I imagine, they (the target) would call law enforcement to remove the scallywags. Or just ignore them.
I think by attaching morality to the issue, the results become less feasible. But then, I’m somewhat a fan of riots and the like.
I don’t think people, well the Angry Internet Men, care what happens to Maxis or other such ‘innocents’. They want the most bang for their buck, don’t think they’re getting it and are lashing out.
Every time this discussion comes up I am astonished about the fury. I just don’t buy spore and be done with it. Maybe I’ll even skip RA3, although this will hurt considerably more. But not as much as the often-cited “arguing on the internet” would hurt.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there are some gems of postings hidden here which state exactly what I am thinking. But all this talking is not worth a dime of you don’t walk the walk.
@Diogo:
For the record, I did not just randomly decide to jump in. I am a regular reader (subscriber) of RPS, and have read pretty much everything you’ve ever posted here. For the most part I lurk, because that’s my nature. On this occasion, I decided to jump in, because well, I think you’re wrong.
But there’s really no point in continuing this argument. You said right at the top that “no one will convince me that a proper campaign launched across a number of media – email, gaming forums, sites and stores – would not have had the same effect, if not more of an impact“. Well you’re right, no one is convincing you, and you’re not convincing anyone else. Which is kind of a shame, because actually, I don’t think writing reviews on Amazon is necessarily the only way to do this. I do think it’s a legitimate and somewhat effective means of protest in this case, but of course there are other ways. You’re just not the right person to figure out what they are.
@Dan:
For the record, I did not just randomly decide to jump in. (…) On this occasion, I decided to jump in, because well, I think you’re wrong.
On what subject, really? The whole “there are other ways to fight the same battle” (which you agree yourself) or the accusation of me “not being able to appreciate what these people did” (which I’ve already disproven for those who can’t be arsed to read what I say)?
Mostly on the basic question of whether this was a valid and legitimate way of protesting. You accept that it may have got results but you don’t accept that this was the right way to get them.
More interesting to me is the particular reason for that. This is my understanding of your basic position: you want to draw a distinction between Spore the game and Maxis the studio that created it on the one hand, and EA the publisher which implemented the DRM system on the other, and only attack the latter. It doesn’t work. You can’t legally have one without the other. If people decide not to buy Spore because of the DRM then yes that sucks for the people who created the game, but that is not the fault of the people who didn’t buy it, and it’s certainly not the fault of the people posting on Amazon to complain about it.
And I don’t see how this particular issue would change regardless of the method used to perform the protest. The basic message, delivered by email or people outside stores or whatever, would still be ‘DRM is bad. Spore has DRM. Don’t buy Spore’ and you would still think that was wrong because it didn’t show respect to the developers who took 4 years creating this game.
@Dan Milburn:
Mostly on the basic question of whether this was a valid and legitimate way of protesting. You accept that it may have got results but you don’t accept that this was the right way to get them.
To quote my very first post in this topic. “High profile games are always a good target for this kind of thing, as people can take advantage of the awareness around the title to promote their goal of criticizing DRM. As such, Spore or any other AAA game using draconian digital rights management is an excellent target. However, it was incredibly juvenile and unfair to attack Spore via Amazon based on the DRM alone.”
Once again, I never claimed the protest was a bad idea or that protesting was wrong. What I said was that I fundamentally disagreed with how it was done.
This is my understanding of your basic position: you want to draw a distinction between Spore the game and Maxis the studio that created it on the one hand, and EA the publisher which implemented the DRM system on the other, and only attack the latter. It doesn’t work.
Does the DRM prevent you from playing Spore out of the box? After installing it, could you not play the game? As you play through Spore, does the DRM affect your actual in-game experience? Yes or no.
If people decide not to buy Spore because of the DRM then yes that sucks for the people who created the game
Which is pretty much where I’m getting at, yes.
but that is not the fault of the people who didn’t buy it, and it’s certainly not the fault of the people posting on Amazon to complain about it.
It most certainly is their fault if the majority of reviews are painting a bleak and biased portrait of the DRM’s influence on Spore. One user’s technical issues with Spore may not even surface for another user (such as Daemon Tools incompatibility, for instance), so why are nearly all the reviews claiming otherwise?
Not everyone has the time or IQ to sit down, play Spore, then review it on its merits and also expose DRM’s potential problems. I understand that. But we’re talking well over one thousand reviews which largely do not talk about the game; rather, many end up saying Spore is rubbish because of the DRM, when this is a lie.
And I don’t see how this particular issue would change regardless of the method used to perform the protest. The basic message, delivered by email or people outside stores or whatever, would still be ‘DRM is bad. Spore has DRM. Don’t buy Spore’ and you would still think that was wrong because it didn’t show respect to the developers who took 4 years creating this game.
Again, the issue isn’t with complaining against Spore’s DRM. It’s with how the message is being sent through the reviews. It’s being touted as “Spore’s DRM”, not “EA’s DRM”. Notice the difference? Am I the only who really has an issue with a “review” that bleats on about Spore being a “crap game” because of DRM, whereas the decision was not theirs and it fails to address the real issues – Spore’s quality as a game and EA’s flustercuck?
Is that what “concerned gamers” can really aspire to – making callous, blanket statements with no regards to the people involved in the game’s development, then proceed to justify themselves because it’s a necessity, incapable of admiting that their way of doing things – while apparently successful – is also possibly damning to a studio who has no fault in the matter? That there are no other alternatives, even if they tried none?
@ Diogo
“Once again, I never claimed the protest was a bad idea or that protesting was wrong. What I said was that I fundamentally disagreed with how it was done.”
Dan stated you said you didnt disagree with the protest but instead how it was carried out?
You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
I find it funny how in the same post you’re mocking someone for being patronising,
“Hail the concerned and intelligent gamer, with his patronizing retort and condescending attitude.”
you then be very patronising.
“Then see who wrote it. In return, I promise I won’t poke fun at you. Deal?”
As Dan has already stated. You buy Spore legally, you get DRM. EA has shot Maxis in the back with their DRM and unfortnately Maxis have suffered because of this. This does not mean protesting against the DRM was wrong, as it was only bringing light to what the consumer was (unknowingly) buying. EA forcing the DRM on Maxis’ product was the thing that caused the issue for Maxis.
As i’ve previously stated, if a consumer reads the reviews you mentioned you had a problem with (stating “Don’t buy, DRM sucks”) and decides not buy on them words alone, thats their choice.
Most people who have been waiting for the game would look for a review that delves a little deeper than that, but if merely knowing the game has DRM puts the person off buying, isnt that a fair choice for the consumer?
Oh and by the way:
“Does the DRM prevent you from playing Spore out of the box? After installing it, could you not play the game? As you play through Spore, does the DRM affect your actual in-game experience? Yes or no.”
Yes. If you refuse to install Malware on your machine.
I’d also like to add to the answer for
“Does the DRM prevent you from playing Spore out of the box? After installing it, could you not play the game? As you play through Spore, does the DRM affect your actual in-game experience? Yes or no.”
When reviewing other games do Choppy graphics, broken textures, slow loading screens, badly programmed engine, etc stop you playing the game you purchased? Yes or no? So mentioning them in a review is wrong then? Basing a review on them is wrong then?
It only means people will not come back to read that persons reviews in the future as the review was shallow and didn’t detail many aspects of the game, but it does highlight some actual faults with the game.
You may get a review of the same game saying “The game has some good features but it was spoilt due to choppy graphics, slow loading screens, broken textures” etc.
@Cataclysm:
Dan stated you said you didnt disagree with the protest but instead how it was carried out? You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
You seem to be confusing arguing for the sake of arguing with acknowledging what he said.
I find it funny how in the same post you’re mocking someone for being patronising
Let’s see – out of nowhere, and with nothing that would indicate otherwise in my posts, Dan pops up in the topic, claims I have no knowledge of the concept of protest, and even decides to quote a definition of it – all because I disagreed with how the protest was carried out. When I poke some fun at him for doing this, I’m patronising.
Ground control to Major Tom?
Most people who have been waiting for the game would look for a review that delves a little deeper than that, but if merely knowing the game has DRM puts the person off buying, isnt that a fair choice for the consumer?
Compare “if you dislike the DRM and what it entails, you may be put off from buying it” with “Spore sucks because of its DRM”. Guess which one I support? I’ve already stated somewhere else in this very topic and the one that started it all that it’s fair game to mention how off putting the DRM can be; what I don’t agree with (yet again…) is that these warnings are not a review of Spore, the game; they’re a review of DRM, which bloody isn’t the game.
Yes. If you refuse to install Malware on your machine.
So I have to assume the people I have known for years and who have bought Spore at the time of release and have had zero issues with DRM in terms of it negatively impacting their in-game experience, are, in fact lying.
Right. That’s it, no more Poker Fridays pr wife swapping with those guys.
When reviewing other games do Choppy graphics, broken textures, slow loading screens, badly programmed engine, etc stop you playing the game you purchased? Yes or no? So mentioning them in a review is wrong then? Basing a review on them is wrong then?
If an ENTIRE REVIEW is based on them or even one single element out of dozens more, yes. It’s hopelessly inadequate, is misinformed and while the core idea of alerting gamers is welcomed, leading them away with false assumptions and little information on everything else isn’t.
“Hail the concerned and intelligent gamer, with his patronizing retort and condescending attitude.”
“Ground control to Major Tom?”
“If an ENTIRE REVIEW is based on them or even one single element out of dozens more, yes. It’s hopelessly inadequate, is misinformed and while the core idea of alerting gamers is welcomed, leading them away with false assumptions and little information on everything else isn’t.”
Wrong. Its not as deep as a review YOU are personally looking for, but it highlights some issues found in the game. Its not misinformed as Spore does indeed have DRM and DRM is infact limiting the product you’re buying.
What i’m trying to say is although a pretty poor, shallow review, its not “abuse” as it is highlighting a problem with the game, which a review is meant to do. Agreed it doesn’t review many parts of the game, thus being what many would call a “poor review” it is not automatically labelled abusive and not a valid way to protest against a feature of the game.
I own Spore, legally, by the way. No assumptions here.
If I was arguing because I wanted better reviews for Spore, I would have shut up and gone elsewhere – there’s no shortage of actual reviews in places other than Amazon.
Highlighting one single problem with a game (and I’m tired of arguing back and forth about the DRM and the game being separate things, even if connected) in detriment of everything else is not what a review is meant to be. That people actually do this and label them as reviews is why many are arguing this is a legitimate style of addressing a review, when they forget that, were the same rules applied to other reviews, they would be up in arms – whether they care to admit to it or not. Imagine multitudes of The Witcher reviews that only – and only – talked about, say, one issue. Be it the poor translation or the blatant machismo of scoring with female NPCs. AssCreed reviews that said absolutely nothing except several paragraphs of poor optimization.
That’s not a review. It’s a glance. At one singled out element out of the whole package.
And once again, while I agree it needed to be addressed, and people need to stamp on EA’s faces forever with this, it was extreme and vindicative. And it doesn’t come down to me being right and you being wrong or some such moral relativismo; simply, you and others seem to have no qualms about those reviews being more like footnotes on a single issue, whereas I do. Opinions, and all that. If we establish that, then it’s easier to understand where everyone is coming from and things click. If not, we may well be arguing this forevermore.
“@ Ed: I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t get into a frothy rage just because I need my disc in the drive to play a game.”
Me too — I still don’t understand the rage over it. I mean, I’d prefer not to have it there, but I don’t mind doing it.
buy viagra online
buy viagra
http://www.kongregate.com/accounts/amark?pill=buy-viagra
[url=http://www.kongregate.com/accounts/amark?pill=buy-viagra]buy viagra[/url]