EA seeks to remedy its 'Spore' DRM mistake
Applying a Band-Aid to a gaping head wound, Electronic Arts has decided to apply more liberal protections to its hit game Spore.
As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the game maker plans to expand the number of machines allowed under its digital rights management plan:
In a statement, Frank Gibeau, EA game label president, said the company was "disappointed" by the misunderstanding around its digital rights management software and that it would expand the installation limit from three machines to five. He added that EA is also expediting the development of a system that will allow customers to "deauthorize" computers and move the game to new machines, without the need to call the company.
CNET's Jennifer Guevin had noted that the Spore DRM provisions, instead of protecting against piracy, had actually encouraged it. Consumers rebelled against the restrictions. This new policy may relieve some of this piracy, but I concur with Dave Rosenberg's argument that EA still needs to learn the difference between a user and a customer:
If there is one thing that open source has taught us, it's that there are "users," and there are "customers." Odds are that all of your customers will be users first, taking your software for a test-drive and then deciding if they want to pay for it. It's all about getting people to consume your software.
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. This model has worked in open source. EA should be examining its applicability to gaming, too, rather than simply providing a bigger cage in which to imprison customers.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Alex Alexzander
"the company was "disappointed" by the misunderstanding around its digital rights management software"
So they still think it is their customers have "misunderstood" an insane restriction even after the customers clearly spoke out about it? I think users' concerns of not being able to reinstall a game after having their computer crash and have to be formatted without calling the company and going through what will most-likely be a 10-to-20-step process to activate again is a valid concern. I think users' concerns about the inevitable future shutdown of activation centers and call centers will kill the game's value is a valid concern. I think CUSTOMERS' concerns that they are being treated like criminals when pirates have had the game before it was released, with the DRM disabled/removed, without having to activate it is a valid concern.
I certainly will not buy Spore for playability reasons, for DRM concerns (some listed above), and because even now EA and Maxis still seem to act as if the consumers are the ones who should bend to their will when it comes to rights. Complaints and concerns be damned! Don't treating your customers like criminals (eg. Guilty before PROVEN innocent) and stop treating your customers with comments and concerns like they are ignorant! Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" ? This is certainly bad PR.
One other note, because I installed the game on one of my Macs I can write 0s to the drive and reinstall the operating system as many times as I want. OS X like Linux does not come with any DRM. If you wanted to wipe and reload 15 times a day you can.
But, the company should disclose what they are going to intall on the box with the game, however. Because what if you do not want DRM software it installed on your box with the game? You cant return the game for a full refund. That has to violate some fairness law somewhere. I only wish there were lawyers willing to defend gamers or computer users.
I must agree...I'm very disappointed in their "wording" about being "disappointed" in the misunderstanding of their DRM. When will these companies learn that not all of their customers are 12 year old children who got the game through Mommy and Daddy? Or that not everyone is a pirate waiting in the shadows to liberate 40 copies of their gaming booty to share with others?
This trend doesn't only affect EA however as many game developers are showing an increasingly "disappointing" disrespect for the hand that feeds. Be it through buggy games that need to be patched regularly upon release or DRM foolishness such as this.
Quite honestly I hope this new economy hits them where it hurts when people start to become more and more cautious of purchasing titles first without checking for word of mouth via the web and friends.
There really needs to be an organized movement to remind game developers that as customers we demand a little more respect. I'm all for developers being vigilant and protecting their interests...but when they over-step their boundaries and install things on my machine without informing me, only to be discovered by myself later on when it causes problems on my computer that they won't pay to correct, then I'm "disappointed" by their disrespect.
Here's a thought: Perhaps the "enemy" of our current "enemy" is our "friend." If gaming companies want to laugh us off and continue to disrespect us as consumers, perhaps a few phone calls to congress and others like the dreaded "Hillary" who are so deadset against games for years and have seen very little victories, might find some solice in legislating that if these companies are going to continue to make their games, they MUST be held accountable for their shoddy practices with DRM, etc. I bet after the first company (Looking at you EA!) gets fined a hefty amount for every copy sold, they along with others will fall into place REAL fast and get with the program.
That is the best kind of DRM system out there, if it is internet-enabled (who doesn't have internet today, in all honesty).
Those minor changes do nothing to remedy it.
- by Imalittleteapot September 21, 2008 1:03 AM PDT
- After the public's response on DRM why not just release a patch to disable it? Why does EA continue to argue with their customers? A crack is already available for download. What's the point of insisting on the DRM anyway?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(24 Comments)The DRM just doesn't work. It's like a company that sells TVs and they say every TV sold comes with a dead cat to stop thieves (DRM). I don't know how a dead cat would stop thieves, but I don't understand how DRM stops pirates either so there, take that.
Now you don't want the dead cat. Also, the cat is dead and it doesn't meow like it's supposed to. Also, less people are buying TVs from you because they don?t like dead cats. However, the company still insists on giving you a dead cat. Why? Just get rid of the stupid cat!
Still sounds to me like some kickbacks or something is going on somewhere. It's the only explanation I have for how DRM companies continue to sell their products even though they have a 100 percent failure rate.