EA: Spore's 'particularly aggressive' DRM unnoticed by most
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Oct 15th 2008 at 11:00AM }
"We chose a particularly aggressive form of DRM, which 99.8 percent of consumers would never notice, but that two-tenths of one percent got incredibly focused and formed an online PR cabal," he said. "We can eliminate piracy by essentially blocking the online service from the pirate." Riccitiello called it "the future of DRM," one we hope will be more adept at distinguishing between the consumers and the criminals.
[Via Big Download]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jon2309 @ Oct 15th 2008 11:05AM
Unnoticed by most, becasue a lot of people no longer have the DRM in their version.
Aggressive DRM = Piracy.
BigD145 @ Oct 15th 2008 11:37AM
Unnoticed by most because the masses are ignorant and the installer doesn't tell you everything it puts on the root of your hard drive.
Oneiroi @ Oct 15th 2008 2:11PM
Yeah it doesn't say anything. I didn't hear anything about the DRM before I bought Spore.
And since I haven't had to reinstall or anything, how would I know if I hadn't been reading on the internets?
gameplayFanBoy @ Oct 15th 2008 11:06AM
Or you could just make your software compelling enough to convince most people to pay for it...
sicsided @ Oct 15th 2008 11:10AM
if only it were that easy...
kingofwale @ Oct 15th 2008 11:06AM
talked about 'pulling number out of you-know-where'
Although this is EA we are talking about.
miccormi @ Oct 15th 2008 11:09AM
What concerns me most is he calls it the future of DRM. This implies that EA hasn't learned anything from this experience and is going to continue doing it as long as they can apparently trick their customers into thinking there isn't a problem here. Just wait a little while longer when a number of people start calling in about how they can't play their game anymore.
BigD145 @ Oct 15th 2008 11:39AM
"EA hasn't learned anything" That line right there stands alone. It rears its head with every EA release.
Monkey Thing?!!? @ Oct 15th 2008 11:08AM
He's partially right, but that 1/5th of 1 % is bullshit
Dirty @ Oct 15th 2008 11:10AM
This clearly is not a solution to piracy, I think they should be focusing on finding something that works and move away from DRM.
copa @ Oct 15th 2008 11:51AM
"This clearly is not a solution to piracy."
You clearly know nothing about running a business. I run a convenience store, and know a thing or two about stopping criminals.
Every time someone shoplifts beer from my store, I implement policies that make it less convenient for paying customers to buy shit from me. I require customers to show me two forms of ID, and give me their Social Security number before they can buy stuff. Also, I have a guy who stands in the parking lot and blocks their car for five minutes before letting them leave.
Unfortunately, my store's annual revenue has actually dropped $60,000 in the year since I started implementing these policies. Also, shoplifting has increased 50%. When I caught one of these criminals, he claimed he would have paid for the beer, but he just didn't want to give me his social security number. I hope he get ass-raped in prison.
Anyway, the revenue drop at my store just illustrates how unchecked shoplifting is going to destroy my business. Obviously, the solution is to implement more draconian policies so I can eliminate shoplifting completely.
Starting tomorrow, I will gut-punch all paying customers at the point of sale. That will give the shoplifters something to think about.
Blazur @ Oct 15th 2008 11:52AM
I'd have no problems with online activation. Software giants have been using this for years (Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft) and its worked well for curbing much of piracy. If a user is unable to get online activation, then a simple phone call ought to suffice.
Those who are not activated cannot receive patches, updates, or DLC.
Blazur @ Oct 15th 2008 11:53AM
copa, that was some funny shit...thanks for the laugh.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 15th 2008 1:17PM
copa, your story is as BS as Dirty's is.
Jon2309 @ Oct 15th 2008 2:01PM
I literally lol'd at copa's post. Sheer gold.
Haggard @ Oct 15th 2008 2:15PM
copa, that was legendary.
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Oct 15th 2008 2:59PM
I can't believe I read through copa's entire post seriously.
giantenemycrab @ Oct 15th 2008 11:12AM
...except for the 900,000 people who pirated it.
LordKelvin @ Oct 15th 2008 11:14AM
Of course the DRM went unnoticed by lots of people. After all, look at the pirated version that lacked the DRM at all, enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people!
Zertoss @ Oct 15th 2008 11:14AM
DRM is like rope and a ball gag. Just look at how unhappy it makes Naked Peach.
And that's before the expansion rape.
Jakka @ Oct 15th 2008 12:09PM
Learning from Samfish's school of Awesome-though-pointless-sex-related-shock-trolling?
I lol'd, keep it up [+1].
Rollins @ Oct 15th 2008 11:15AM
"We can eliminate piracy by essentially blocking the online service from the pirate."
Him and I can agree on this point.
The problem is, the DRM used on Spore went above and beyond the call of duty on this point. All they needed to do was limit the game to one registration per CD-key. Even with a cracked version of the game, you can't use the online features, and one could argue that they're half the fun.
Every other function of the DRM, other than pissing off customers, was rendered irrelevant by the easy-to-use, easy-to-download, and immediately available pirated version.
Even if those who were/are pissed about the DRM are a minority, EA has still lost their money. The only result of the DRM was lost sales. Any sales that would have been lost as a result of piracy were still lost, as the game was still easily able to be pirated.
TL;DR version: The only effective copy protection is to provide online features that will compel people to buy the game instead of pirate it.
deadrody @ Oct 15th 2008 5:44PM
I would certainly be curious to know how you essentially block "the pirate" from the online service. Unless you implement an online service like Steam, you cannot 1) identify pirates, or 2) block them from the online service because the executable WILL be cracked to remove the online check in the first place.
It certainly sounds to me like he is entering RIAA / MPAA territory in basically wanting pirates identified through their ISP and their internet access revoked. Sorry if I am 100% against allowing private organizations police the internet. They don't care how many innocent people they catch and screw in their little dragnet, and since they are private, they have no accountability to anyone.
Rollins @ Oct 15th 2008 8:25PM
"I would certainly be curious to know how you essentially block 'the pirate' from the online service."
By online service, I meant the whole part of Spore that allows you to have other peoples' creations visit yours and vice-versa. You can easily block the pirates from that - just require a unique CD key to create an account. In fact, that's what Spore does, and it's why the pirated version just isn't quite as fun as the retail one. :)
If I recall correctly, Unreal Tournament 3 is similar in that it requires a CD-key to register for the account you need to play online.
JoeTheBlow @ Oct 15th 2008 11:18AM
Riccitiello is quite possible one of the biggest dicks on the planet, and i wouldn't waste time listening to whatever corporate bullshit that fuckhead spews forth.
GenBanks @ Oct 15th 2008 11:21AM
"We chose a particularly aggressive form of DRM, which 99.8 percent of consumers would never notice, but that two-tenths of one percent got incredibly focused and formed an online PR cabal,"
Bullshit!
That's only because they don't know about it NOW... But they [casual users] WILL know about it in maybe 2 years when most of them reach their installation limit. THEN they will be pissed off. EA is just exploiting peoples' ignorance about DRM and saying that their ignorance is a sign that 'they don't mind'.
Not minding and not knowing are two very different things, Mr. Riccitiello.
nojak @ Oct 15th 2008 3:50PM
I hate to be bursting anyone's bubble here, as I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but I seriously doubt anyone's going to be playing SPORE still 2 years from now, or even ONE year from now. Maybe if they'd made a decent game, like we all thought it would be, the average consumer would eventually flip out, but I seriously doubt most consumers are:
1. Going have to re-install anytime soon.
2. Really want to still play SPORE
So, I think they're smarter than we give them credit for. They tried out aggressive DRM on a game that sucks, and no one will care about in 2 years. Call me crazy, but EA just doesn't care.
GenBanks @ Oct 15th 2008 3:52PM
I totally agree that Spore was disappointing but I mean that in theory, to refute the EA CEO's broad and unfounded assertion.
nojak @ Oct 15th 2008 4:01PM
I guess I was just hoping his comment, in reality, wasn't broad, and that he knows of the lack of quality SPORE was put out in, and that he was referring more to that specific case.
Maybe I'm trying to be naive and refute it all to the back of my mind so I don't have to think about my games becoming computer controlling androids.
I just think that it's at least a possibility he knows the game sucked, but that it sold a ton of copies, and that no one will probably play it for very long, so he's making comments like these.
Could be wrong... I know Far Cry 2 is coming out with the same DRM, so that kind of rips my case apart. Not that I'm interested in that game anyways, since Crytek isn't developing it, and EA is, which means it's tainted crap now.
I wonder if Dead Space for PC will have the same DRM...
JoeTheBlow @ Oct 15th 2008 11:22AM
I'm sure the people will notice in the future when they try and install their game and get fucked off because:
They went over the draconian install limit...or
EA turned off the DRM servers
Don't think they wouldn't, Yahoo and Walmart recently turned off their DRM servers, fucking over anyone who bought music from them.
DRM=renting.
IGLAW @ Oct 15th 2008 11:25AM
99.8% = casual gamers. /:
why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 15th 2008 11:42AM
100% of those who pirated it had no DRM problems.
MowDownJoe @ Oct 15th 2008 11:33AM
Why doesn't EA use Steam, again? That's where the money in PC Gaming is at.
Rollins @ Oct 15th 2008 11:35AM
In the case of Crysis Warhead, they do. Oh, but the SecuROM DRM is still there, on top of the Steam DRM.
Idiocy of the highest caliber.
Neuromancer @ Oct 15th 2008 11:44AM
That'd be like being able to order McDonalds food from a Burger King.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 15th 2008 11:37AM
How is this the future of DRM? Blizzard has been doing it for years. No copy protection on the actual game, just it requires a code to get on the network service.
It's the past and present of DRM EA, and now you finally notice?
JP @ Oct 15th 2008 12:01PM
Reading the comments abover...and while I agree that EA is off base on this issue....
Where is the outcry against the pirates who are causing this problem in the first place??
All I am seeing is EA this and EA that....EA didn't screw is....the pirates are the ones screwing us.
And I tell you....if any of us were running a business and someone came through and was taking money out of your pockets on something that you worked hard on....you would be pissed and start to take measures. And like I said....EA might be going about it the wrong way.....but I think the anger should be more towards the pirates and piracy themselves.
Knight Marquise @ Oct 15th 2008 12:18PM
JP,
You're sage advice and sound observations regarding this issue will be lost under the pro-piracy junta flying under the banner of "anti-drm".
I do own a business, and you're spot on.
Sidebuster @ Oct 15th 2008 12:25PM
JP is on the money with this one. The root of the problem is piracy not DRM. DRM is just a reaction to the real problem. If people simply stopped pirating then we wouldn't even have cd keys or have to keep the cd in the drive to play a game. I am getting sick of people comming up with excuses. Your not in the right. Your not stealing bread to feed your family. You stealing entertainment that you can do without if you can't afford it.
aristokrat @ Oct 15th 2008 12:32PM
That's one of the biggest misconceptions about software piracy. It does not equal a lost sale on a 1:1 ratio. Many people would not buy some products if they weren't free (i.e. when I can't find a free download of many modern songs, I don't go buy it because many of them are not worth it, it merely catchy manufactured music that I have stuck in my head and won't listen to again after a week).
Say perhaps you truly can't afford a new game but download it to play it. How is that a lost sale? While it is stealing, the software company wasn't going to make any more money without the piracy because the purchase would never have been made. This whole concept of "lost sales" of digital media is a merely the greed of various industries showing through. When you have actual goods, that have an incremental cost (as opposed to the fixed cost of digital media), theft is a lost sale, but not with media.
I would venture the only true lost sales come from people who don't want to deal with DRM. Give them a reason to go with the free alternative (which now offers a different feature-set once DRM is removed), and honest people will say "Fuck You!" Once again, Sins of a Solar Empire did great without DRM because it was good and they didn't try to make you feel like a criminal.
Rollins @ Oct 15th 2008 12:41PM
If there are two things that can be assumed about PC gaming, now and forever, they are as follows.
1) There will always be pirates.
2) No matter what DRM pops into existence, it will be broken by the aforementioned pirates on or before the game is released.
Blaming the pirates is pointless, because at this point, they're effectively a force of nature. Pirates may be why DRM is supposedly necessary, but it's the same pirates that make DRM worthless. Thus, blaming the publishers for implementing DRM that harasses customers is the only recourse.
It's as if someone held a gigantic umbrella with thousands of holes over everyone's heads, pissing them off because it blocks the view of the sky. All the while, the aforementioned person claims he's trying to stop the rain.
Kael @ Oct 15th 2008 1:02PM
"All I am seeing is EA this and EA that....EA didn't screw us....the pirates are the ones screwing us."
Piracy should be eliminated, but this is about EA's dumb decision to screw us. Piracy provoked them to make this happen, and if it had anything at all to do with stopping or slowing piracy one single teeny tiny bit; if it prevented even one regular Joe from lending the game to a friend when a disc check somehow wouldn't suffice, I'd understand. I'd have to accept that you have to fight piracy however you can.
But it doesn't. It doesn't do one darn thing to fight, slow, or even discourage piracy in any way, shape or form. Spore was available a week ahead of release, just like some other games, without DRM of any kind. Not one pirate was affected by EA's latest attempt to affect pirates, yet they're obviously too stupid to realize that, so they keep on doing it even when the only damage it causes is collateral damage. It's pointless to keep screwing over legitimate customers, whether they know, or care, or don't, when it doesn't do anything BUT screw over legitimate customers. It shows EA doesn't know what it's doing, and it's too bad the "cabal" can't convince them of the obvious truth.
JP @ Oct 15th 2008 1:19PM
@ Kael...
Don't get me wrong..I am not saying EA is not in the wrong here.....
What I am saying is..and you are giving credence to what I am saying....piracy is given waaaayyy to much of a free pass. Look at the comments. Most people are cool with piracy. Or they will say...pirates are pirates..can't stop them so why bother....
That is disturbing. We somehow think the pirate and piracy is to be worshipped because it is cool to take from the big guys....I just thing it is the wrong message to send is all....
why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 15th 2008 1:19PM
The pirates are a problem, but I don't know that they are THE problem.
Companies get too excited talking about the money they perceive to have lost to piracy to think about how much they make from actually selling it.
Look at it this way, if a company was going to sell 3M copies with zero piracy, but 500,000 people download it from bittorrent and they still sell 3M copies, how big a problem is it?
If the company concentrates on making a product people will buy, because it's more convenient to buy it, or because you get more functionality by buying it than pirating it, then they will generate the sales they need to make a profit. And then don't sweat the piracy so much.
MagusDF @ Oct 15th 2008 3:27PM
...except that the DRM is not geared at stopping the pirates. Its got 2 purposes
1) discourage or makit it difficult for the masses to pirate (it does this point well)
2) kill renting and reselling of bought games. (EA drm does this extremly well too)
1) i dont think they take into account how big spore would have been with more reasonable DRM
2) EA would never admit this... but used games is a bigger threat to them than piracy. They dont make 10% of the sale price when ever a used game is bought they get 0$ and thats a legitimate customer it also kills the total sales figures.
Rollins @ Oct 15th 2008 4:03PM
@MagusDF
"1) discourage or makit it difficult for the masses to pirate (it does this point well) "
No, no it doesn't. It is just as easy for me to go to (insert BitTorrent tracker search site here), download a torrent for Spore, and play it as it would be if it didn't have any DRM whatsoever.
Trust me.
Mutagenaric @ Oct 15th 2008 4:11PM
JP, who's worshiping pirates? I for one worship Cthulhu, because it's the only logical choice.
Regarding piracy, I would point out that it is not possible to stop it, as others have. Companies are overreacting to this "piracy" issue, clearly. After all, Spore still made tons of money, but I'm sure a whole lot of people pirated it before it came out. Most of those people are informed gamers who'd not have bought it in the first place once the reviews started coming in.
In a sense, the only way piracy has hurt EA's sales in this instance is that some people got to see the terrible quality games EA puts out, and now know not to buy from them anymore. Although I imagine most people here already knew that EA screws the customer any way they can; DRM is just the latest in a trend for them, isn't it?
deadrody @ Oct 15th 2008 5:34PM
Pirates are really NOT causing this. Why would I say that ? Because even WITH this super uncrackable DRM, tens of thousands of cracked copies have been downloaded using bit torrent. There is no stopping the actual pirates that crack the executables and post the game online. Once that is done, the game WILL be downloaded and installed. DRM has no discernible effect on piracy. NONE.
I mean seriously, explain to me who this DRM is stopping. If you know how to type "btjunkie.org" and "spore" into your web browser you're done. Where does DRM fit into that ?
Implementing DRM is EA's choice and nothing more. Maybe everyone at EA is a raving idiot. That explanation fits as well as any other. You would think the people that run a software production company would recognize that their DRM is not actually stopping anyone from getting the game for free that even has half of a clue. Not only does it annoy legitimate customers, but the licensing fees for the DRM is like lighting money on fire and flushing it down the toilet.
Frankly, it's unbelievably stupid. And copa's analogy about stopping shoplifting is dead nuts on.
hunter @ Oct 15th 2008 1:41PM
EA doesn´t gives a damn of what people say, and it´s not going to change because they´ll always be "RIGHT".
if nobody buys their stupid games because they are garbage EA is going to say PIRACY!!!! it was the PIRACY!!! our game didn´t sell because those stupid pirates stole it!!! not because our game was a big pile of poo!!!! and if the game sells well: see??? everybody loves drm!!! only a 0.0000001% of the people complained which means they are stupid pirates and where mad because they couldn´t break our super protection!!!!
personally i played spore for one hour, i haven´t touched it again... big pile of poo....
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Oct 15th 2008 12:03PM
EA is purposely muddling the waters, again.
Of course most people wouldn't notice within the first month or two into the product's lifecycle.
99% of people wouldn't have upgraded their/bought new PCs three times in two months. Nor would any copies of the game have been resold three times.
EA is spinning this issue so hard they must be dizzy in the head by now.