(I really miss my Macbook Air. It's really making it harder for me to get my posts out on-time.)
Spore received a lot of hype before coming out. It has received decent critic reviews from GameSpot and other sites, but has a really poor rating on Amazon despite being its top seller right now. The main reason for this is that EA put DRM on the software. I've mentioned before about DRM on music. What does it mean in terms of software? In this instance, it means that you can only install Spore three times. If you get a new machine or your hard drives crash and you need to reinstall your OS, then reinstalling the software counts as another time. Uninstalling the software from a machine does not gain you back an install and there's no way to unregister a machine; you only get 3 installs and there is no way to get back an install once one is counted. Also, similar to the music, if somehow EA goes down or decides to discontinue their DRM servers as Yahoo! and Microsoft did, then the software would stop working as well.
Of course, the reviews are a little skewed. Postings on anti-DRM forums encouraged their members to spam Amazon reviews about the DRM information. Many of these people may not have even bought the game even if it was DRM-free, yet they made posts about how they refuse to buy the game because it isn't. At the same time, actual user reviews so far haven't been so hot either, saying that the gameplay is pretty dull in the early phases of the game.
Honestly though, I am less likely to buy the game after hearing about the DRM policy on the software. I am pro DRM-free, but I would still not qualify myself as anti-DRM; I think I would've been more likely to buy this game if it had DRM but I was able to unregister my machines, but the strict three install policy is too much for me to deal with.
20080908
Comments on Spore
Posted by
RoboJenny
@
Monday, September 08, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

2 comments:
One of the arguments of DRM is that it will reduce prices. $50 for 3 installs is a ripoff. But the industry has used the same tired argument since the mid 80's, the golden age of software piracy.
It's another case of working the problem at the wrong end of things. Uncrackable DRM doesn't exist so they make it illegal (DMCA) and throw fair use in the toilet.
Instead, why not think of a way to give consumers something they can't get with a copy that makes the $50 more attractive than getting a half-baked pirate copy? And/or lower the price.
I agree.
And really, if people wanted to crack it or pirate it, it'll happen. Nothing has been uncrackable in some way. But I also think that if you make your cost and policies make sense, people won't mind paying even if they can crack it. It is still easy to get mp3s for free illegally, but at this point, most people buy mp3s off one of many services out there. The pricing scheme makes sense now, the selection has passed the critical point, and the process is simple enough where people are willing pay for their digital music.
I think even without extra content that a "real" copy has over a pirated copy, they would've sold more copies if they set themselves up like Steam did for their games (Half-Life, Portal, Team Fortress, etc) where you log on with your id and buy the game once, and then you can download and play the game from any other computer you log on with your id on, but only one copy can be running at a time. It's a system that makes sense to people where they don't have to worry about losing the CD or CD key, their copy is protected from someone else using it through the username/password system, and it's easily accessible to purchase. There would be no reason to pirate the software unless you are a super poor college student, and even so if you've been waiting so long in anticipation for a game, you are likely to pay the cost anyway.
Post a Comment