A New, Unpopular Philosophy

Stop me when you’ve heard this before: Gamers are up in arms over the copy protection scheme of a major publisher.

The tumult from the latest skirmish between warring gamers and publishers involves Spore, which limits the number of installs permitted to 3 before the user must contact EA to extend their license. Immediately gamers lined up their rhetorical catapults and fired salvo after salvo of familiar, flaming linguistic ballistics, rolling out all the hits: treating customers like criminals, it doesn’t do anything against piracy, boycott EA and so on.

Call it apathy. Call it selling out. Call it whatever you want, but try as I might, I simply can not find any enthusiasm for bubbling up my once white-hot animus. It’s not just that I don’t necessarily see anything extraordinarily troubling about EA’s security measures; it’s also that I just can’t muster the same gamer-rage that once seemed to come so easily. Feeling victimized by every perceived slight just isn't as appealing to me as it used to be.

Let me stress that I don’t fault those who experience trouble with restrictive DRM for speaking up. I just wonder how many of the people expressing outrage saw fire on the horizon and went running toward it with lighter fluid?

I appreciate the basic sentiment of gamers, misguided as I think it may be. But, when I think about my personal experience with recent anti-piracy efforts, I find it hard to recall it actually causing me any trouble. Oh, it’s not hard to imagine circumstances under which I could be inconvenienced, but when I measure that against the instances in which it actually happened, I come up blank.

I can count on one hand the number of games I’ve actually installed more than three times. So, if I look at how the Spore issue relates to me practically, then I am forced to concede that the likelihood of my having to ever extend my installations is extraordinarily small. And, should I ever have to make that call, I wonder how difficult a process that really is? I once had to do something similar for Windows. The process was painless and lasted a few minutes. So, I ask myself: is this a price I’m willing to pay if EA’s investors feel like the company is making meaningful anti-piracy efforts and by extension is willing to greenlight even more high-budget PC titles?

The more I release myself from the chains of hysterical hypotheticals, the more I find myself not really having a problem with it.

And, I think about the options that EA and other major publishers have. Piracy is a problem that companies can’t choose not to address. Arguments over the number of lost sales any degree of piracy represent or the effectiveness of anti-piracy efforts aren’t really the point. The real issue is that the company would be criminally negligent if it didn't make measurable efforts to protect the multi-million dollar investment they have in Spore.

You’re absolutely right; those who stand the largest likelihood of being inconvenienced are the legitimate consumers — saying nothing of how often that will actually happen or how difficult a problem that is to fix. Just once, though, I wouldn’t mind seeing the hivemind of gamer rage aimed at the people who actually put us in this position, the pirates. How likely that is to happen, I don't know. I suspect that most publishers have lost a good deal of faith on that question, which is perhaps why the PC has become such a diminished platform. Again, I think I’ll choose to not get worked up about things that are beyond my control.

It's not that I’m not trying to flip the blame on the self-labeled victims. I don’t believe that approach is any more productive than bombing EA with negative Amazon.com reviews. Those who want to get in a schoolyard brawl with the publishing giant are welcome to their dirty fights. Maybe they’ll even get the company to back down on Spore, winning a minor skirmish in the losing war against the inevitable. The problem is that gamers don't have much of a track record on the 'being practical about the realities of business' front. Beside the fact that our ability to participate in the industry debate has been completely dilluted as a result of our tacit approval of piracy, there are very few demonstrable instances where concessions to gamers haven't just resulted in further outrage. We aren't known for meeting in the middle.

So, I’m going to reserve what dry fumes of gamer rage I have left for problems that, for me, are actual rather than hypothetical. I’ll save my victimization for when Spore of Mass Effect actually leave me with no access to the content I paid for rather than suffering the many imagined ways such a thing might happen. I suspect that by the time the installation limitation is likely to be an issue, I will have no shortage of options on the table for either extending my license or circumventing EA’s anti-piracy measures.

These days I’m willing to spend hours re-installing my favorite old games. I’ll waste time scouring the internet for updated texture packs, old patches and homemade mods. If my time and $60 is so precious that I can’t accept that corporations have legal obligations to shareholders and a necessary interest in making efforts to limit the theft of their property, then I am comfortable with my choices of supporting different companies or finding a new past time.

That's the whole point. I have a choice. I can either wash myself in the venomous bath of voluntary outrage for a problem I will likely never have, or I can accept that the circumstances of the industry simply do not permit a major publisher the luxury of being lackadaisical with their investment. I can make the industry the villain for trying to protect its property, or I can make the thieves the villain for massive excesses and creating the combative climate. I can be furious about the vague problems of some unknown number of people, or I can realize that for me I will likely buy Spore, install it and play it without incident.

For me, the choice isn’t particularly complicated. It may make me a patsy, a sellout or an apologist. Fair enough, I can’t control those labels, but I can control the fact that while thousands of outraged gamers have signed petitions, fired off angry emails, posted furiously on message boards and drowned Spore with negative reviews, I was having a fun and hassle free experience playing the actual game.

In the immortal words of Miracle Max, “have fun stormin’ da castle.”

Comments

DRM doesn't stop piracy. Spore was all over the torrent sites days before release.

While I agree that the gamer mob is pretty short-sighted, most companies' approaches to stopping piracy are at best ineffective and, at worst, ineffective and customer-punishing.

Valve is on a better track, engendering brand love and a good customer experience.

Really great article mr. Sands

I'm totally with you on this-- by the time you may need the 4th install, I'm sure EA will have removed the limit like it happened with Bioshock recently or there'll be other ways to circumvent the protection.

However, the time EA is gaining on the Pirates is crucial and worth a lot of money.

A lot of people don't seem to realize but between the mainstream and the hardcore, there's another group. Let's call them the hardstreams.. or the... maincores? Anyway! those people play a lot of game but they don't give a damn about companies, all they want is to play a lot of games. They don't read gaming blogs either. They're the in-betweens: if they can save a penny, then damn the companies. If a counter-piracy measure prevents that chunk of population (that is quite numerous) to get a pirated copy and buy the game then more power to EA.

The thing is, the most vocal gamers concerned with this measure are the hardcores. those who take gaming to heart as their primary hobby. Of course it sucks that those measures are forced upon us but really, tell me, when has the honest person not paid for the dellinquents?

Wow this thread exploded.

I tend to agree with you Elysium with the exception of certain games. For example Battlefield 2, I know I have reinstalled Windows OS no less than four times over the course of owning Battlefield 2. I have also had to reinstall the game five or more times independent from OS installations due to install corruptions or patches breaking something. Now if this game was under the same copy protection rules as Spore is that means I would have had to call EA thrice or even four times over the course of 3+ years to get BF2 to work. Since I play Mods for BF2 this would make the act somewhat tedious. If I have to pay a licensing fee each time it would be more than tedious and rather obnoxious and down right irritating. So I believe the type of game makes a different in the benefit of such a copyright protection scheme.

It is for this reason that I would dislike this version of copyright if applied to all their games.

interstate78 wrote:

The thing is, the most vocal gamers concerned with this measure are the hardcores. those who take gaming to heart as their primary hobby. Of course it sucks that those measures are forced upon us but really, tell me, when has the honest person not paid for the dellinquents?

I think I don't belong to the hardcore category. I bought 7 new full price mainstream games in the last year, and I haven't finished all of them yet. Yet, it makes the question of choice and value even more critical. What I am going to buy this month? hm... Spore has that annoying DRM thing, Mercenaries 2 is getting average reviews, I wasn't completely convinced by the Force Unleashed demo... What to do? oh well, I'll just buy some old games from GOG and finish some games on my pile. DRM reduces perceived value a little bit (for some people), and when you're on the fence about every game like me, it can make the difference between buying or not.

We all have different opinions on DRM, but we're also different types of gamers, with different buying habits. If you knew you were going to buy Spore from the beginning, I don't see why DRM would stop you.

I do agree that the pirates are to blame for this situation, and I especially despise those who justify their theft by saying they do it because of the DRM. But where I fundamentally disagree with Elysium's article, is where it says that people who oppose DRM are out of touch with the realities of business or arguing on a matter of principle (or being self-labelled victims, a comment which I find quite patronizing). As far as I'm concerned, the debate is on a very practical level.

I just realize as I type this that we also have different past experience with DRM. I remember buying CD's that wouldn't work in my car CD player because of the copy protection scheme. I had to make pirate copies of my own CDs ! Well, technically not "pirate" copies, because copying for private use is still legal in my country. But as I understand it, the creator of the program I used to circumvent the copy protection could face legal action in the US (DMCA) and France (DADVSI). It's all silly when mp3's of the album I bought are all over the Internet anyway. It is tempting to start to talk about the legal apparatus that goes hand in hand with DRM, if more copyright law is a good or bad thing, but that is another debate. The bottom line is that past experiences like these also affect my opinion on DRM, compared to other people who may not have been bothered by it before.

I hope that you can understand how people are affected or bothered by the way they could be affected by DRM and how it reduces the value of the products they are considering to buy, regardless of their principles. Oh and I would also like to praise Elysium and Evo for their reactions, they can voice their opinion way more eloquently than me

This is an aside but, django, I'd just like to note that I think you are a "hardcore" gamer, at least in the sense meant by marketing surveys and the like. Seven full-price retail games per year is actually a significant number, especially if you're just referring to 2008 which is just getting into the flood season. Whether or not you finished them is irrelevant in my view (I don't finish many of my games) and certainly irrelevant to the producers of the game.

Furthermore you belong to a forum focusing on video games. Think about that, how many people belong to and actively participate on an internet forum or community focused on a specific task or past time? Certainly most of my friends don't bother, even if they're very interested in Tai-Bo or air fare, and those who do are very much among the knowledgeable opinion-makers of their social circles on that subject.

You may not buy as many games as some, obsess over an individual game like others, modify and create new content like a select few, or spend as much free time as any given high school student to video games in general but if those seven games weren't by PopCap you are most certainly on the "hardcore" side of the dividing line.

That's true bnpederson. I suppose I didn't reply well to interstate78's point. He seemed to make the distinction between the mainstream (doesn't care about games, doesn't buy many), the hardcore (cares a lot about games, buys a lot), the "maincore" (buys a lot but is casual about it). I suppose I belong to a fourth category, which cares about games but doesn't end up buying that many. Or that "hardcore" doesn't equal "buy more games than casuals". The rest of my post is then built on the basis that we buy only a tiny fraction of the games (even if you only count the major, must-buy ones) released on the market.

PS: About the last year figure, I was thinking about games bought since august 07. It has been a year rich in releases. The figure is higher than what I buy on average... but your point stands.

django wrote:

Or that "hardcore" doesn't equal "buy more games than casuals".

For my personal definition, that's definitely true. My roommate has got perhaps two new games in the last year. He's also, however, been playing World of Warcraft since Beta and has all nine classes maxed at level 70 with full five-set epics on each and every one of them. That's hardcore, damnit.

But this is off topic, "what is hardcore exactly" probably deserves its own thread. I think even the casual gamer cares about DRM in the sense of it stopping them from playing the game they want. They just don't focus on the industry enough to even know what DRM is. But let me tell you, as much hype as Spore is getting over EA's DRM policies this is absolutely nothing compared to the sh*t storm that will happen if these policies stay in place when Sims 3 launches.

rabbit wrote:

I've pretty much said this before but I still don't get how this is all that different than the iTunes store I'd windows activation.

I think the difference between the three is 1) price per unit and 2) necessity.

With iTunes, a song costs very little. You know what you're getting into when you make that purchase and as a result the cost/benefit ratio is pretty good IMO (not that i would buy my music from iTunes anyway).... plus, even non-tech savvy people know that you can very easily get around iTunes copy protection if they need to. i.e. A large portion of the general public know these workarounds because they are heavily involved in the industry.

With Windows you are forced to upgrade via their methods or face not being able to have compatibility with a host of applications (including games) due to their consumer OS monopoly.

I really don't think they are comparable situations with a game which is as entirely not necessary as a purchase as a piece of music or as required as a monopolistic OS in the market place. Plus the price of games is fairly high - especially as we head into an economic crunch. If the price of a game with heavy DRM (with limited installs) was closer to rental and these terms were made completely clear then i do not think that there would be much of a problem at all. We're being asked to pay the same price for a product that previously had less restrictions - in some cases we're asked to pay more for this privilege.

rabbit wrote:

I've pretty much said this before but I still don't get how this is all that different than the iTunes store I'd windows activation.

My understanding about iTunes is that you can re-assign your license to a different device yourself up to seven times. Not an iTunes user, but I remember someone mentioning this in the XBOX DRM discussions.

Windows activation is different because Microsoft doesn't remember your hardware dna indefinitely. You don't consume the activation. You can reinstall again and again on the exact same hardware as needed. I believe that 8-12 months after activation of XP if your motherboard gets fried, there is a good chance your hardware dna is no longer on record so you can actually reinstall it on a new motherboard based system without even having to call in.

I feel the same way about iTunes DRM, which is 5 transfers the last time I checked. The problem for me is, my wife has bought all this music on iTunes, and much of it is at the threshold of being locked for a variety of reasons (OS reinstalls, a CPU upgrade, backups). So the next time we get a new computer, we stand to lose a lot of music. I never shared songs. I just, through my normal routine and some bad luck with Windows, ended up right on the limit for transfers for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with transferring music to a new machine.

We get all our mp3 downloads from Amazon now, which happens to have some pretty awesome deals from time to time.

iTunes lets you deactivate a computer before you replace it... or, if you already replaced it, once per year you can deactivate every registered computer and bring them back again one by one. This essentially means that you can keep five active machines on your iTunes account forever, assuming reasonable rates of turnover (e.g. less than five new activations a year).

psu_13 wrote:

iTunes lets you deactivate a computer before you replace it... or, if you already replaced it, once per year you can deactivate every registered computer and bring them back again one by one. This essentially means that you can keep five active machines on your iTunes account forever, assuming reasonable rates of turnover (e.g. less than five new activations a year).

I was just about to point that out. At some point I will probably just find a software solution to strip the DRM out my songs. Not sure if there is one yet, but I can always rip it to an audio CD and import them back in later. That would be a hassle, but it is possible. For now, I've been buying songs on iTunes since about day one, and have yet to run into any problems.

A couple of friends of ours tried to send out CDs of the music they played at their wedding to guests and ran into problems, as you can only produce some many CDs with the same playlist. Since it was one CD's worth of music, he just ripped it to an audio CD and copied that.

Gamers can't have it both ways.

We can either be a part of a solution toward ending piracy, OR
we can leave the piracy issue to companies to solve.

Point me in the direction of Pirate & Co's public offices.

This thread has brought out some excellent thoughts from many members. It has also allowed many to vent.

Other than that it seems to me that it was baiting game which I am surprised to see coming from this author.

I for one am very disappointed in you, Mr. Sands.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I also don't buy from iTunes.

Ditto that. I'll stick with my own mp3s.

First off, I apologize in advance for pulling off yesterday's scabs. I didn't read the responses to my points until this morning.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Doubtingthomas, aside from the fact that your car theft analogy is as flawed in relation to this as any of the other arguments we "self-congratulating" people are making, protesting something you think is wrong doesn't make you a self-congratulating snob. In fact, I've seen no such attitude from anyone who is against EA's practices in this thread. I'm sure there's plenty of that elsewhere but welcome to the Internet. If you disagree with the stance we're taking and want to debate it, I'm all for that but the snarky generalization of those who are trying to vocalize the position rather than just not buying Spore and hoping EA will figure out why really irks me. We are not the same people as the trolls vandalizing Amazon.

I agree that most commenters on this forum are much more reasonable than on the wider web. However;

fedex wrote:

The violation of Godwin's law that he at least had the decency to apologize for

As well as a lot of talking about Rights, which for the life of my I can't find a right to reinstall a game I bought in perpetuity in the constitution. You have the right to not buy a product that doesn't have the features you want. You have the right to ask that companies make such a product. But EA has the right to make whatever product it wants, barring negligence leading to death or injury, which is pretty hard to do with a piece of software unless it makes your PC catch fire, in which case the guys behind Crysis are more culpable of doing bad things.

Protesting that you think something is wrong doesn't make you a snob. It is the manner in which a person protests that makes them snobs.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
doubtingthomas396 wrote:

The fact is that a EA using poorly devised DRM is not the equivalent of Ford pushing production of cars with dangerous gas tanks, or with the brownshirts coming for Jews in the night, or even Microsoft pushing XBox 360s out the door in spite of poor production yields (I'll save my gamer rage for that, thank you very much).

It's not the equivalent of having locks on your car either. Seems a bit unfair to throw up a bad analogy and then criticize other people for theirs.

I don't believe the analogy is unfair. I wasn't directly comparing car locks with DRM. I was making the point that the argument that says "There's no way to prevent this, so let's do nothing" is misguided. I apologize that it wasn't clearer.

Botswana wrote:

However, I GREATLY resent any implication that I am being condescending to anyone else. I don't appreciate the sheeple remark anymore than the folks who like to drag out the "brown people" argument whenever someone has a problem with illegal immigration or terrorism. Implied prejuidice is just an ugly tactic to use and I would expect better outside of the P&C forum.

The sheeple reference may have been over the top. I was responding to the accusations being flung at Elysium that he is just being lazy, as if advocating that abandoning DRM because piracy is inevitable is not equally lazy.

I appreciate the folks at Stardock putting out another model with regards to DRM. But, again, if you're only going to buy games with acceptable DRM, you're apt to miss out on a lot that other people without such qualms will not miss. It's no fair grousing that you're denied Spore because of principles you imposed on yourself.

nsmike wrote:

You either actually seriously believe that DRM opponents think of themselves as fighting a fight that goes beyond consumer rights and reasonable expectations consumers have of developers and publishers, or you're getting bitter about having to argue so much. Calm down, none of us thinks we're Patrick Henry. Every time you ask a question or pose a position, you're asking for a rebuttal, so if you don't want one, stop posting.

Actually, I haven't posted anything on the subject in a while. It was only after Elysium crystallized the issue for me that I felt compelled to chime in. The sweeping brush I painted with was more of a response to the culmination of reading a lot of arguments that I never got roused enough to respond to, but generally fell along the lines of "I'm striking a blow against The Man." The invocation of the Nazis coming for people put it over the top for me. In retrospect, that was probably unfair to the majority of posters here.

Plus, I thought the "Give me liberty city or give me death" line was funny and wanted to use it.

Incidentally, this is why I've steered clear of the P&C forum. I have a tendency to start trying to score debate points, which often comes across as being a snarky bastard. Maybe I am just a snarky bastard, in which case it's for the best that I restrict my bloviations to my own weblog.

That said, one last bit of bloviation before I call it quits.

Evo wrote:
Elysium wrote:

Here's a question: what have gamers done to curb or even appear to curb piracy? Do you really think that there will be less DRM as long as gamers tacitly approve of piracy?

Elysium,

Long time reader/listener, but have never registered here until now, and I did so specifically for this comment. I respect you a lot, but I can't fathom how you could possibly suggest that gamers who are not actively (somehow) fighting piracy or endorsing aggressive DRM measures are tacitly approving of piracy. This is beyond absurd, sir.

A famous author would disagree with that sentiment on general principle.

I don't disagree with most of what's in that post, but I don't think it's reasonable to say "I don't think (insert type of criminal) should affect my life." That would be wonderful, but it's simply impossible. We all take measures to protect ourselves from evil, and so do corporations which must look out for their own interests.

I doubt DRM is the best way to combat piracy, casual or otherwise. But it is a method, and a measurable one. The customer decides when the inconvenience of a given DRM method outweighs the use of the game-- you do it, I do it, Elysium does it. It's just the market doing it's job.

As for the rest of your post, we don't disagree on anything but how much of an obstacle DRM is to ourselves personally.

Point me in the direction of Pirate & Co's public offices.

Well, aside from the fact that there are clearly very public leaders in the piracy trade, that's hardly the only way to turn the tide.

Other than that it seems to me that it was baiting game which I am surprised to see coming from this author.
I for one am very disappointed in you, Mr. Sands.

Well, you're welcome to that opinion and all the righteous indignation you care for. As an alternative, you could also look at it as an opinion that's not the same as yours. I feel like I made my argument reasonably, and was rewarded with a - for the most part - reasonable debate back.

doubtingthomas396 wrote:
Evo wrote:
Elysium wrote:

Here's a question: what have gamers done to curb or even appear to curb piracy? Do you really think that there will be less DRM as long as gamers tacitly approve of piracy?

Elysium,

Long time reader/listener, but have never registered here until now, and I did so specifically for this comment. I respect you a lot, but I can't fathom how you could possibly suggest that gamers who are not actively (somehow) fighting piracy or endorsing aggressive DRM measures are tacitly approving of piracy. This is beyond absurd, sir.

A famous author would disagree with that sentiment on general principle.

I don't disagree with most of what's in that post, but I don't think it's reasonable to say "I don't think (insert type of criminal) should affect my life." That would be wonderful, but it's simply impossible. We all take measures to protect ourselves from evil, and so do corporations which must look out for their own interests.

I doubt DRM is the best way to combat piracy, casual or otherwise. But it is a method, and a measurable one. The customer decides when the inconvenience of a given DRM method outweighs the use of the game-- you do it, I do it, Elysium does it. It's just the market doing it's job.

As for the rest of your post, we don't disagree on anything but how much of an obstacle DRM is to ourselves personally.

Citing Orwell on apathy in a discussion about consumer expectations is beyond the pale, man!

If you re-read what I wrote, I took special care to say, "As a consumer...," before my statement. As a citizen, I understand that it's practically impossible that the removal of inconveniences would happen (whether it be a restrictive DRM scheme or simply a CD key or online validation, or security gates at the mall to cite another analogy), but again, I am a consumer and I am only looking out for myself here. I don't have any responsibility to EA or Maxis, it's the other way around. Don't tell me I'm apathetic for insisting that a vendor should cater primarily to its potential paying customers.

I'm as big an advocate as you'll ever find for PC gaming, but I do not feel compelled to put a corporation's interests ahead of my own, even if some think that by not doing so, I'm dooming my hobby (a notion I do not agree with).

I know I'm starting to sound like Brad Wardell here, but the guy is on the right track with what he's done at Stardock. Although his scheme is not practical for other publishers today, he's beating down a new path that is headed in the right direction by recognizing that potential customers should be the central focus of his publication and distribution plan instead of pirates.

Quote:

Point me in the direction of Pirate & Co's public offices.

Well, aside from the fact that there are clearly very public leaders in the piracy trade, that's hardly the only way to turn the tide.

My point, of course, being that the idea that more people can rant against the perceived wrongs of Publishers than act against Piracy can be viewed in the context that Publishers have an open presence, whereas Piracy is a rather nebulous group comprised of shadowy individuals who do not post their addresses on their products.

Quote:

Other than that it seems to me that it was baiting game which I am surprised to see coming from this author.
I for one am very disappointed in you, Mr. Sands.

Well, you're welcome to that opinion and all the righteous indignation you care for. As an alternative, you could also look at it as an opinion that's not the same as yours. I feel like I made my argument reasonably, and was rewarded with a - for the most part - reasonable debate back.

Please do not try to interpret my feelings and add to the negative side of this debate by applying terms such as "righteous indignation". I respect your writing skills immensely. I have been a long-time listener to your views and agree with many points you make, even on this issue. I also agree with Rabbit that it takes "Iron Balls" to come out with an argument such as this one and there is a touch of baiting in there as well.

This is not in any way meant to disparage your opinion nor this debate.

If you want to know, I am frankly at the point where I think Publishers might do well to STOP producing titles for the PC entirely. This may be the only real way to put a stop to piracy. I say this as someone who plays almost exclusively on the PC and would feel this loss enormously.

My point, of course, being that the idea that more people can rant against the perceived wrongs of Publishers than act against Piracy can be viewed in the context that Publishers have an open presence, whereas Piracy is a rather nebulous group comprised of shadowy individuals who do not post their addresses on their products.

You know, there's a parallel to be drawn here in a totally different forum by a totally different person than myself between the way that corporation fight piracy and countries fight terrorism. A huge stretch, and a topic absolutely fraught with gaping pits filled with razor sharp spikes, but I think an interesting parallel nonetheless.

Please do not try to interpret my feelings and add to the negative side of this debate by applying terms such as "righteous indignation". I respect your writing skills immensely. I have been a long-time listener to your views and agree with many points you make, even on this issue. I also agree with Rabbit that it takes "Iron Balls" to come out with an argument such as this one and there is a touch of baiting in there as well.
This is not in any way meant to disparage your opinion nor this debate.

I really tried to avoid using baiting language. I'm not sure that is entirely possible in a topic as contentious as this, and even though I said it in a very petulant way, it is true that I have very little impact in how people interpret what I put up. I do hold this august community in high regard, and would hate to carry the label of troll, so I apologize for getting a little terse.

Thanks for clarifying. I do appreciate it.

Dr. Corby wrote:

I respect your writing skills immensely. I have been a long-time listener to your views and agree with many points you make, even on this issue. I also agree with Rabbit that it takes "Iron Balls" to come out with an argument such as this one and there is a touch of baiting in there as well.

I was going to mention this sooner though never got around to it. Whether it was intentional or not i find the use of the term 'hysterical hypotheticals' in the main post and in subsequent posts an unfortunate exaggeration. The term leads to a belittling dismissal of arguments made against apathy which many pro-DRM/corporate posts in this thread (and others) latch onto. If you read through these analogies on these pages they are not out of all perspective or hysterical in their nature - nor is the measured and calculated reaction to a trend that is not welcomed by everyone. All of the possible outcomes are noted and i haven't seen one where people have said DRM will come into your home and kick you in the balls In comparison, the true example of a hysterical reaction has been shown recently in the news with regards to the LHC... i.e. the end of the world etc. from a simple collision experiment.

Looking at the above link to Orwell - who extrapolated trends he saw occurring and tried to warn others about the possible outcomes through allegory and metaphor - would his stories be classed as hysterical hypothetical?

"The sky is falling" said chicken little, "But it is not falling over this debate just yet."

there's a parallel to be drawn here in a totally different forum by a totally different person than myself between the way that corporation fight piracy and countries fight terrorism. A huge stretch, and a topic absolutely fraught with gaping pits filled with razor sharp spikes, but I think an interesting parallel nonetheless.

You know, this is really a brilliant analogy! There is a likeness there which could be explored. The best way to face acts of terror being that we should not allow terrorists to change our way of life. Oh damn...I don't want to continue down that road...

As to the rest of your post, your apology is wholeheartedly accepted. You are a terrific writer, and I can't imagine how ANYONE could be brave enough to take on this topic without ruffling a few feathers here and there. It is I who should apologize for jumping on your case. It is easy to get upset when you have anger over a situation but do not have a clear outlet for its expression.
I will miss my PC Games!

I don't think PC games are going anywhere. We may bet different genres dominating the market, and smaller developers picking up where larger developers opt out. But as long as people have computers around, someone is going to make games for them.

Heck, they even make games for the Mac, and it doesn't have much a market share at all.

Life would be better without DRM, but I hardly think it is bad with it. I will easily get 100-200 hours of play out of Spore. Maybe a ton more if I take into account how much my wife and daughter play. If a few years down the road I try to install, but can't, I will call EA. Failing that, I will pick up another copy for $10-20 and still enjoy the game for a pretty small investment considering the time spent on it.

Well, I'm beyond late to this, but I'm amazed I haven't found this point more than casually mentioned ...

In a short summary, if you are posting here, Spore is not for you. Much like the schlock that we sneer at derisively on the Wii, it is intended to sell millions of copies to folks who probably will not buy another game this year.

All rhetoric aside, the target audience for a "true" casual game will be unlikely to encounter difficulty with Spore's DRM.

-Needing an internet connection? The most likely sticking point. Some folks might be pissed about this, and they will likely try to return the game.

-Three install limit? Be honest, how many casual families have more than one computer? How many of them reinstall regularly? As a tech, I am surprised by how many machines I come across still running Windows 98. With XP being significantly more solid as an OS, I think the casual crowd will be running the same install for a few years more.

-Longevity? The casual crowd will be very unlikely to uninstall and reinstall Spore over the years. My guess is that most will play for a few months, then never look back. It will only be uninstalled if they run out of hard drive space.

As Elysium pointed out, this DRM is a business decision. Will it annoy the kind of folks here? Certainly. Will it annoy the other two million customers who never encounter it? Nope. Not one bit. It will however, stop them from passing their Spore disk around to all their friends, which will sell lots more copies. EA made a rational (and most likely good) business decision to forgo possible sales to a disgruntled minority in order to cash in.

Eventually, the masses will turn on many forms of DRM (see the RIAA). Until that day, temper your arguments with the knowledge that if you're here and reading this, you are a tiny minority of the expected consumer base. Vote with your dollars (and I support you in that decision), but bear in mind that you might as well vote Libertarian this November as well.

Yes, I understand educating the masses is the whole point of the Amazon thing. It just doesn't feel right to me. It is filed right next to the folks who want to ban Spore since it "teaches" evolution. Boisterous, but largely insignificant.

EDIT: I see many of these points are made over in nsmike's thread. Sorry, there's only so much time ya know?

Is the domain name going to stay www.gamerswithjobs.com, or does this philosophy herald a relaunch as DoingtheGameCompanysPRJob.com? That new address would be a lot of typing.

Man, the philosophy of consumer advocacy sure has taken a kick in the stones the last decade. What an irresponsible article.

dramarent wrote:

To your point regarding the webbernet mob on Amazon, I think the best combat for speech is more speech. Let EA speak intelligent about their DRM decisions and let the market place decide. Personally, I think it's deceptive. If the Amazon mob is in effect informing those wishing to purchase Spore that they're going to be subject to a shadowy DRM scheme, then they're doing good work.

The purpose of a product review is to inform a prospective buyer as to its value. If those Amazon mob types want to value the game low due to the DRM, so what? Even more troubling would be big business (publishers / studios) getting involved and asking Amazon to moderate the reviews. That sounds like censorship to me!

I know it's not the most popular opinion but this is exactly how I view the Amazon mob.

William bought Spore. I'm holding the box in front of my eyes right now and it doesn't mention DRM or the 3 installation limit anywhere. It's also absent from Amazon's product description. So no, I see nothing wrong with informing others of these issues through Amazon's review system. They may not be the most intelligent words ever written but it gets the point across.

Will is as hardcore as they come but when he bought the game he had no idea about the installation limit either. The fact that EA won't let consumers make informed decisions by hiding the DRM is low.

Mystic Violet wrote:

William bought Spore. I'm holding the box in front of my eyes right now and it doesn't mention DRM or the 3 installation limit anywhere. It's also absent from Amazon's product description. So no, I see nothing wrong with informing others of these issues through Amazon's review system. They may not be the most intelligent words ever written but it gets the point across.

Does it mention anything about an Internet connection and activation being required? A few people here have said that it does mention that, though without the 3 install limit.

Looks like another storm's a brewin', this time over a game feature that was apparently misrepresented in the manual. I get the feeling however that this was an oversight that can be fixed in a patch.

LilCodger wrote:

-Three install limit? Be honest, how many casual families have more than one computer? How many of them reinstall regularly? As a tech, I am surprised by how many machines I come across still running Windows 98. With XP being significantly more solid as an OS, I think the casual crowd will be running the same install for a few years more.

I speak only from my knowledge of friends who primarily focus on the Sims 2 (and now World of Warcraft to a lesser extent) but in many instances they game on laptops that get destroyed, lost, or have to have complete hard drive meltdowns fairly often. One of my friends is on her fifth laptop in the last few years due to various accidents and hardware errors, and each of those has Sims 2 installed on it.

Now Spore might have a different audience, certainly being installed on a family's desktop computer in the living room, even with kids, is less prone to failure than a the laptop of a woman in her late twenties, but I don't think the casual crowd will gloss over the problem if Spore proves to be as popular as EA wants, or if EA sticks with this on other flagship PC titles.

Great article, great debate (as in the other thread which no doubt inspired the article), and even some new points to be made on page five...

mateo wrote:

Isn't this is a voluntary purchase?

Sure, but it's EA. EA is big. A big publisher with a lot of studios under their wing. EA controls a sizeable percentage of the PC game market, and if they're going to start publishing things in a way that makes me less inclined to buy them, my PC gaming experience will suffer. As a responsible capitalist and gamer, it is my duty to a) vote with my dollars, b) tell my friends, and c) tell EA. They've already made me uninterested in two games this year by this decision, and from a purely selfish point of view, I do not want to miss out on some of these franchises!

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

I doubt DRM is the best way to combat piracy, casual or otherwise. But it is a method, and a measurable one.

Measurable? Really? I seriously doubt it. There are so many variables that go into the sales of a game: marketing, PR, branding, for sequels: how previous versions performed, whether the market is burned out on the genre, when it is released, where it is released, for cross-platform games: whether the game is better suited to a PC or a game controller, whether anyone feels the game is worth playing... Given all those variables, it'd be a challenge to quantify the effect of DRM on the sales of any game.

I think that's why we get increasingly invasive DRM in the first place. A publisher has to do *something*. It's nigh impossible to quantify whether DRM improves sales more than it hurts them. I lay it all at the feet of the sales forces of companies responsible for developing DRM software and servers. It's easy to cultivate an atmosphere of fear, to play to those fears, and to appear to be the knight in shining armor. Philosophical fuzzy arguments about being nice to the customer and improving brand loyalty don't even come close to the impact of quoting the number of downloads of torrents (regardless of how those relate to actual lost sales).

Except for one thing. DRM does not stop piracy. Sure, a publisher has a fiduciary responsibility to minimize lost sales of its product. Even though it has "been around for 10 years", copy protection has *never* significantly slowed down piracy. So what's the real reason for it?

My cynical side wants to think this is a pure business decision by EA that has absolutely nothing to do with pirating or casual copying of games. They're trying to build another franchise here, and the only way you are successful with a franchise is if you keep people buying year after year. What better way to keep people buying than planned obsolescence?