DRM and Spore

Friday, September 19th, 2008 | Market Trends

Even if you’ve been hiding under a rock, you know that despite one of the best-executed marketing juggernauts in history (and a legitimately awesome game), the big story around Spore has been the Digital Rights Management kerfluffle. Sure, every major media outlet has been trying to carry the carefully pre-packaged drama about how Wright wants to make you into an atheist’s Intelligent Designer. Something like that. I dislike wasting my precious time with choreographed controversy, so I’ve barely paid any attention to that meme. You can find that “story” in Time Magazine, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and more.

A more authentic story is that customers are a raging ball of hate for the way EA chose to handle the DRM issues.

Spore is a strange hybrid between online and offline, single player and multiplayer. The full game as designed can’t be consumed without some element of connectivity to the game’s servers and to other people. In an attempt to keep piracy at a minimum, EA opted to go with Apple’s highly successful model of granting “licenses,” where the supposedly owned content can only be played on a limited number of authorized machines. The wrinkle is that you must be re-authenticated every time you want to download new content. (Well, and unlike iTunes, EA didn’t make it easy to transfer/authorize/deauthorize. Their fairly rational reason for that was most people install a game on one machine, maybe a second if the old computer gets replaced.)

It sounds questionable, but it’s old hat to MMO players – and besides, originally the plan was that your game would just not work at all, even offline, unless you logged in every ten days. The new model is downright airy and trusting in comparison. A subroutine verifying that your copy is legit before you can have the goodies doesn’t strike me as terribly onerous. Also, “not having to have the disc in the machine” strikes me as useful. You would have to see my desk to understand. I mean, you cannot actually see the desk.

But I’m a broken shell of a woman after years of MMOs. Apparently much of the Spore audience is unfamiliar with the “we own the content you create with our tools, and possibly you as well” stance of today’s online entertainment providers.

EA is apparently aware of how the drama may be impacting sales of the most wildly hyped game in their stable, and this story was posted while I was typing the first draft of this column: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10046288-16.html (Kotaku has the full EA statement. The vaguely threatening statement that without draconian DRM, publishers will stop making PC games is, for my money, the most hilarious part of the entire release.)

For us as a group here at GamerDNA,  the money quote in the Cnet post was “As such, EA really should be thinking differently, allowing unfettered access to the game itself for users–though likely in a crippled form–and then allowing customers to buy their way into the game to get enhanced functionality.”

In today’s highly connected environment, more and more players expect demonstration levels, trial periods, and limited-function freeware options. They want to share and discover new forms of entertainment, and the discovery has more satisfaction for them than being passively informed via traditional marketing or advertising. The major providers in the casual gaming sphere have already learned that five free levels with minimal controls will reach millions of players. Enough of that critical mass will pay for a full-featured version to make the model profitable (see past editions of this column for more details). Now, the major studios need to take that leap – and that level of faith may not be easy for today’s “intelligent designers.”

Next week: Why the rage? Why now, when the plan for DRM’s been known for months? I have a hypothesis that there’s a generation gap here, as well as a number of people unaccustomed to MMOs and DRM in general. Tune in next time to see the numbers, and whether or not I’m crazy!

Tags: , , , ,

  • Ex-Spore
    Even 5 installs is too limited.Per the ever changing hardware atmosphere with pc's you can easily use up 2 installs by installing the game then realizing your hardware just wont cut it.What if you move from xp to vista to use the newer directx?(Thats three down).What if your father/mother/brother wants to play it? Thats5 installs right there.WHen i guy a game i have the right to use it as i see fit,that is why there are laws(allthough retarded in there current state)that are there to prohibit the sharing and other illegal things you can do.But limiting how i can use my game,installing on more then one pc as many times as i like,is not going to get you anywhere.It truely is sad considering Will Wright has spent his entire career making amazing games builind up to a "SimEverything",Spore,is a great game,but the DRM cripples it and made me return my pre-order(i know of the drm but not to such an extenet of limited installs).EA is only hurting Will Wright,if spore dosent sell,he wont make another game like it,imagine the technology in 5-8 years when "Spore2" would come out? And what that would enable Will Wright and his team to create? EA needs to stop killing companies(Pandemic,Maxix,etc) and let them be.
  • arislyn
    I have no problems with being verified every time I log into the game. Like you, being a like time MMO player, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the 3-installation rule. I know for a fact that is not going to work for me.

    My husband is an IT/hardware guy and my PC gets used quite a bit in testing various and sundry bits and pieces of hardware. So, either every time my husband tests a friend's hardware on my PC, I loose an authorization or I tell my husband that he can't use my PC. Plus, I play old games all the time. I'm constantly shifting out old games for new, or old games for older games. No. No, I don't think that's going to work.

    MMOs are much freer than this. Certainly, I'm authorized every time I log in. However, I can install/uninstall any of my MMOs as many times as I like and change hardware as often as I like with no problems.
  • Scootz
    I dont have any problems logging in for online content, I do this for MMOs and Steam games. Thats fine and not a issue.
    But the install limit sucks hard, I know I'm gonna run into it. I upgrade my machine on a regular basis and Spore seems like a Civ in that I might still be playing for years. I feel really bad for Will Wright that they did this to him, and if I read about the DRM before I purchased it I would not have it right now.
  • crazyinatophat
    I'm not really sure about the whole 3-5 install thing. I've heard a bunch of different things about it. First I heard you were only allowed to install it 3 times. Does this mean you can install it on up to 3 machines as many times as you want or just the 3 times? I've also heard that once you install it on a pc and uninstall it that you get your install back. I'm not real sure on the whole thing, but I do know that this is BS. You shouldn't have to pay 50 bucks just to try out or rent this game, because that's essentially what you're doing if you do buy it.

    We bought the game only because we already shelled out money for the Spore Creator and it looked like a pretty decent game despite all this drama going on about it.

    I think no matter how you look at it, you're screwed if you pirated it and you're screwed if you buy it.The game seems like it's totally revolved around playing online. All your content is downloaded from other players. So of course if you don't play it online, all you will be playing with is stuff you've created and default content. Atleast that's what I figured out after our internet went down and we ended up playing it offline. It's lacking a lot when played offline so I can imagine everyone who pirated it had to of been pretty disappointed. Even if you didn't pirate it, like I said if the there is infact a 3-5 limit for installation, you're still screwed because you've paid around 50 bucks for a game you don't even "own".

    Now I know what your thinking: You can get keys by calling up some customer service number, but who in the hell wants to do that when you've already paid money for the game. Oh yeah, good luck with that. I'm sure you'll have to beg to get one. Everytime your computer crashes, you get new hardware, or even if you reformat your computer regularly.

    Anyway my point was, you shouldn't have to pay that much money for a game if you don't even fully "own" it after purchasing it. It is a pretty decent game when you've got the full working version and online access, it's just a drag that EA thought this would be a good idea. -_-
  • TheTwan
    I'm frankly quite curious about why only now this becomes as unnecessarily big an issue as it is. Basically the question posed for next week's blog entry. This kind of stuff is neither new, nor unique to Spore, but for some reason it seems to me that Spore's getting the short end of the stick here.

    For example, I've noticed a lot of people around the net complaining that they're shelling out $50 for Spore and not getting to "own" it. This is far from new, read the EULAs of the majority of the games you own and there'll be something to the effect of "this software is non-exclusively licensed (nod sold) to you". You almost never own the game, you simply pay for the right to play it. And all your derivative works like maps, skins, mods, etc.? They're just that, derivative works, which means you don't fully (if at all) own them either.

    I also have to wonder if the average consumer (which will usually take precedence over the "hardcore", also nothing new) is really going to feel restricted by a base limit of five installs. I mean, let's take an "average" family, we'll say two kids and two parents. Odds are that the parents will share a CPU and we'll assume each kid gets his/her own computer. That's three installs right there with two to spare just in case. That'll suit most people just fine.

    To anyone who'd like to answer, why do you think this all sort of came to a head with the release of Spore? I would very much like to know the concrete reasons why you feel this is so much worse than what came before it.
  • The biggest reason this is worse than before is the limiting of installs. What is not stated here is that each account you run spore on a computer consumes an install. You get 3 installs.

    I much prefer the MMO model. Allow me to install and uninstall it as much as I like and register the install to my email and allow me to just run it on one device as it knows that I connected. Then again, I am a mmo player and used to that model.

    Also if they really followed the model of Apple and its DRM for iTunes, that would be great to be able to Authenticate and Unauthenticate an install, thus saving the problem.

    The reason it came to head now? By far this is going to be the most popular game that uses this style of DRM at this point, what better opportunity do people have to unite and let the industry we don't like poorly thought out copy right protections.
  • Wasn't the more outrageous thing that you can't have multiple accounts with your copy of Spore? So if you want to play and someone else in the house wants to play, they need to go out and buy their own copy or you need to share one account?

    I gather maxis is addressing this with 'screen names' (basically sub-accounts or alts), but that seemed like a really strange tack to take, and indicates they were still tinkering with their restrictions late in the dev process, given the misprint in the manual.
  • Les
    I and my family were seriously looking forward to Spore with the intent of buying three copies so we could all play at the same time, but the inclusion of SecuROM DRM was a deal killer. I wrote about this at length on my own blog here, here, and here, but my best argument is probably the one I wrote on why I won't be buying Red Alert 3 either which is here.

    The upshot of it all is this: The SecuROM DRM and the install limit is less about stopping piracy (Spore was cracked and on the net five days before it was released to stores) as it is about eliminating the resale potential of the game in question. The folks at Gamestop are making a killing on buying up games people don't want anymore and then selling them at nearly the cost of a new game. A new copy of Call of Duty 4 for the Xbox 360 retails for $59.99 and the "used" copy is selling for $54.99. If you were to trade in your copy you'd probably get $25 for it. The game publishers aren't happy at all with this secondhand market because they don't see a dime from it. Limiting the installs on a game is one way to eliminate that market (there are no listings for Spore at this time).

    Checking the Spore EULA we can see that this is exactly the aim they have in mind as it says transfer are allowed up to the point that you've used up your maximum number of installs:

    Transfer. You may make a one time permanent transfer to all your rights to install and use the Software to another individual or legal entity provided that: (a) the technical protection measures used by the Software supports such transfers; (b) you also transfer this License and all copies of the Software; (b) you retain no copies of the Software, upgrades, updates or prior versions; and (c) the receiving party accepts the terms and conditions of this License. You may not be able to transfer the right to receive updates, dynamically served content, or the right to use any online service of EA in connection with the Software. You may not be able to transfer the Software if you have already exhausted the terms of this License by authenticating the
    Software on the allowed number machines. Subsequent recipients of this License may not be able to authenticate the Software on additional machines. EA may require that any end user of the Software register the Software online as a condition of use and/or purchase additional licenses. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT TRANSFER PRE-RELEASE COPIES OF THE SOFTWARE.


    In other words, maybe you can resell it when you're sick of it and maybe you can't. It's up to us and how we feel about it.

    That's a minor quibble in my book, though, as I rarely ever sell off games I've bought. The technical issues that arise due to SecuROM as I talk about in my blog entries are the main reason I won't buy the game or any other that use SecuROM. I'm not about to plunk down $50 to be treated like a criminal or to lose control over what I am allowed to run on my PC.
  • I agree with many of the posts above. I have no issue with confirming my account each time I load the game. My issue is with the limited installs. I am already on my third one on the same system! The idea that if I need to install it again I might be denied is absurd.
  • "A subroutine verifying that your copy is legit before you can have the goodies doesn’t strike me as terribly onerous. Also, “not having to have the disc in the machine” strikes me as useful."

    What about people who have no internet? Or what happens when they pull the plug on the authentication server?

    Oh, as for not needing a CD -- I find cracks work better and every game has one! Even for patches; amazing!
blog comments powered by Disqus

Twitter


follow gamerDNA at http://twitter.com

Facebook

gamerDNA

Become a fan of gamerDNA!

Subscribe

Enter your email to get blog update notifications:

Powered by FeedBurner

Archives