I Voted, and a Spore Update (Long Overdue)

I voted. Drove right on down to the church where they conducted the voting for my precinct, and filled in little bubbles with a black marker. My state, Colorado, did not have a write-in for the Presidential race, so I was not able to write in Ron Paul. I did, however, vote for Chuck Baldwin, a member of the American Constitution party, whose views are, generally, aligned with Dr. Paul's. I voted for my Congress-people and Senators, and I didn't vote for a single person who voted for the bailout plan. They should all be publicly ridiculed for what they have done.

I meant to, a couple of months ago, write a follow-up to the post I did on Spore back in September. I've been following that one as it's developed across the Net. Currently, the Spore review sits at 1.5 stars on amazon, with most of those being 1 star. There are a few more people now who are giving it a bad review because of its simplistic gameplay mechanics. But most of the 3,124 people who have reviewed it are complaining DRM.

EA, at first, responded in typical corporate fashion... "We're trying to keep people from ripping us off" was the approximate jist of it. Not too long after, however, they made a big stinking deal about "listening to our custmers and responding to their feedback." How did they respond, you might ask. Well, they increased the number of installs from 3 to 5. From everything I can find, it seems that they were working on a way to let the system recognize when you've uninstalled it from a computer so you can get one of your installs back, but I haven't been able to find an update on that. If anybody has an insight, let me know.

One of the other big complaints regarding the SecuROM DRM was that EA did not, anywhere on the box or in the paperwork, tell customers that a third-party application would be installed along with the game. EA's explanation for this is simply that they currently use one form of a ToS (terms of service). If they were to include information about their DRM methods, they would have to have multiple ToS documents (one for each product, since they apparently handle DRM differently for each one - Read more here)..... Really?! What kind of excuse is that for a multi-billion dollar corporation to make. You can't handle the stress of having multiple ToS docs? Why not consolidate your DRM policies instead?

EA missed the point on this whole DRM thing. Yes, people are upset about the number of installs, and they're upset that EA is installing software on their computers without permission. The true point, however, is that DRM is just plain stupid. EA claims that it prevents people from pirating and installing on an infinite number of computers. My arguments against this remain from my last article, but wait, I have more.

To start with pirating, it's plainly obvious that DRM does nothing to affect pirates. Spore was released to the pirating community weeks before it was released to the public. Consider that, according to Torrent Freak, within one month of its torrent release (the game first appeared on 9/2, and the article was written on 10/1), the pirated copy of Spore had been downloaded about 1 million times. That's an estimate, but considering how long Spre remained in the top 15 most downloaded list, it's likely not that far off. So, obviously, DRM does nothing to prevent pirating - rather, it encourages it according to commentors on Pirate Bay.

EA's other argument is that it prevents people from installing it on umpteen computers. I hadn't realized this was that big of a problem, but consider this (straight from the mouth of EA via Ars Technica... and keep in mind that the numbers are "these numbers are a sample and shouldn't be taken as indicative of total sales"):

• Total activations: 437,138
• Users activating on only 1 machine: 86 percent
  
• Users activating on more than 1 machine: 14 percent
  
• User trying to activate on more than 3 machines: 0.4 percent

... so, straight from EA's own data, how is multiple installs a problem again?????

Like I said before, EA is missing the point. Stop treating paying customers like criminals, and they will still pay for your product. It's just that simple.

Behind on the Times - The Amazon Spore Debacle

It seems that everybody has already posted this. Both The Knight Shift and Consumerist already have articles. But, what the hey, I'm going to throw my two cents in there as well. Check this screenshot from Amazon.

What is wrong with this image? Namely, Spore, the new game from EA and SimCity creator Will Wright, is the number 1 selling game on Amazon, BUUUUUT it's got a 1 star rating. As of the time of this writing, 1,812 customer have reviewed the game (the data from the section I screenshotted just now seems to be a bit behind), and 1,676 of those are 1 star ratings. For those of you without a calculator, that's 92.5%. This screenshot is a bit more current.

Holy righteous fury, Batman!

I've spent a good chunk of time today reading the customer reviews of this game, and the reason for the 1 star reviews is really pretty evident: DRM.

What's the big deal about the DRM, you may ask. Let's break it down. DRM, or Digital Rights Management, is a tool put in place by the computer industry a long time ago. Think CD keys of days gone by. It's evolved since then. In its latest iteration of Office, Microsoft makes users call in or connect to a network to verify their copy of office with a very long product key, which leads to a very long registration key. The idea is to keep people from pirating the software.

Like Mass Effect and Bioshock before it, Spore comes with a thrid-party software called SecuROM, which is the piece of software that manages the DRM restrictions. EA's been using this software for a while now.

• Bioshock - EA used SecuROM to limit the number of installs of Bioshock to 3 per CD Key. If you uninstalled Bioshock, the use was reset, so if you had it installed on three computers and removed it from one, that use would be reset giving you an additional activation.
• Mass Effect - EA changed it's policy with Mass Effect. Instead of the 3 install bit, EA decided that they would make the software connect to the network to verify itself every 10 days. This caused problems in that anybody without internet couldn't continue to use it after the initial install. After a bevy of complaints, EA changed to policy back to 3 activations, but with a catch. Uninstalling from a computer no longer reset the use for that computer.

And here is where everybody is caught up. Let's look at the arguments presented in the various reviews found on Amazon.

There is no notification of any 3rd party software being installed on the system.

That is a pretty serious claim, but, from everything I've been able to gather, it's totally correct. There is no mention on the box or in the EULA that makes any mention of any third-party software. This just reeks of shady. Yes, yes, there were press releases about DRM being included with Spore, but not everybody, especially in the caual gamer market that this game appeals to, reads those things. Hell, I love video games, and I didn't read any of those. If there is third party software being installed on a customer's computer, EA should go out of their way to make sure that customer knows about it. To do otherwise is just asking to be sued.

Three installs? What?!

The most common comment I could find related this to a $50 rental. Remember that when the game is purchased, it comes with exactly 3 activations. If you run out of activations, you have to call EA, and they will give you another one at their discretion. So, you might get one, you might not. More on this in a minute.

Technical issues with the SecuROM software.

Many, many people write reviews that cite problems either with Spore or with previous games that use the SecuROM software. These issues include the software being a resource hog, greatly impacting the performance of the computer, straight on through to full-on system failures. Add to that the 3 installs bit, and you have a recipe for a $50 coaster.

So what?

So, the 1st and 3rd points are fairly straight forward. It's the 3 install thing that most people seem to be arguing about. Most people who support the DRM software accuse the detractors of being pirates for needing to install it more than 3 times. Take the following cases as examples of times that more than 3 installs would be necessary:

1. You have 3 computers (one for you, one for your spouse, and one for your kids). You install Spore on all 3. Your spouse's laptop dies, so you buy her a new one. You try to install Spore and receive a message telling you that you've exceeded your maximum number of activations for your CD key. This leaves you with a game that you purchased legally that you are not allowed to use on your laptop. You call EA and hope whoever answers the phone is having a good enough day to allow you to claim an extra activation.
2. You have 1 computer, which you install Spore on. Your hard drive crashes. You replace it and install Spore again. That's 2 activations down. Let's say your processor goes bad, so you replace that. SecuROM no longer recognizes your system, because the hardware configuration (which is stored on EA's activation servers) has changed. You must activate it again, losing your 3rd and last activation. If anything else happens to the computer (included a SecuROM-caused system failure), you are SOL.

Like I said before, this DRM solution was put into place to prevent people from pirating the software. Yet, there were pirated copies of this game loaded onto every torrent site known to man up to 4 days prior to the realease of the game in the US. The pirates stripped the SecuROM software out of said pirated copies, so the pirates are using the game for free AND they don't have to worry about the limitations imposed by the SecuROM software. This begs the question "how is this helping to prevent piracy again?"

What this IS doing, and rather successfully I might say, is alienating people that would have ordinarily purchased the game. Why spend $50 on the game that has all these limitations when you can go get the game for free without any limitations? It all boils down to this: video game publishers, and the computer industry in general, need to stop treating their customers like criminals. If your customers feel like criminals, they will probably act like criminals too. And this kind of blatant disrespect of people will create exactly this kind of situation. Individuals who rise up and say "No more", much like the folks at Amazon are doing right now. True, it's the best selling game right now, but with all the folks saying they are going to send the game back in for a refund, it will probably be the most returned game pretty soon too. EA stands to lose A LOT of money from this unless it meets the demand of its customers and does something about this DRM fiasco. 

Maybe they can take a page from the book of Stardock, a company that also makes computer games, but they don't use any form of DRM. And, somehow, they still turn a profit. Could it be because they don't treat their customers like criminals? Maybe EA should look into that.