f



Amazon.com users hate "Spore" DRM

1Up.com http://atu.ca/647

If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

...Spore's DRM limits owners to only three activations of 
the game after installation. The point is to prohibit 
software pirates from sharing and reusing activation codes 
over and over, but it also means that if a user happens to 
uninstall and reinstall Spore more than three times for 
completely legitimate reasons, they'll have to contact 
Electronic Arts customer support to request and have 
approved a new authentication on a case-by-case basis. 
Which is precisely what has Amazon users up in arms.

A quick scan of the negative reviews reveals some bitterly 
sensationalistic headlines: "DRM Kills another potentially 
great game," "Not a chance until the DRM goes," and "DRM 
complicates life, removes value." One reviewer, who calls 
the DRM "draconian," even likened a purchase to a rental as 
opposed to an actual ownership of the game, since a player 
could theoretically be barred from playing their copy of 
Spore if they use up their activations and EA refuses to 
allow more. "What you will be left with is a nice, colorful 
$50 coaster. And you will be required to pay for another 
copy/license if you want to continue playing," the user 
writes.

And believe it or not, this backlash comes after EA and 
Maxis made Spore's DRM less stringent, when fans decried 
the originally announced plan to require online 
authentication every 10 days. As for how much the Amazon 
debacle will affect sales of the game remains uncertain, 
but it's probably a PR problem that EA and Maxis could have 
happily lived without.

0
DC
9/8/2008 3:05:07 PM
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc 321 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

95 Replies
629 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 5

On Sep 8, 10:05=A0am, DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com you may be surprised =
to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

So what?  Of those 159 one star raters probably none of them actually
have the game.  My guess is someone orchestrated a "let's diss Spore
on Amazon" campaign.

BTW, I couldn't care less as Spore doesn't interest me.
0
WDS
9/8/2008 3:31:02 PM
On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 09:05:07 -0600 (MDT), DC
<nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

>1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>
>If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
>http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
>game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
>and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
>of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
>are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
>thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
>rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

I'm no fan of this type of copy protection, and could give less than a
shit about Spore, but this reeks of some web sites DRM agenda.

Here is my take on this, and what I suggest publishers do... These
titles are mostly only hot to pirates when they're new. If they
implement the DRM for the first few months of of the release they
would protect their program and satisfy long term fans. Perhaps patch
it or have it do one last "phone home" once the game hits the 20
dollar price point. After that point, all you would need is the CD key
and the install limitation would be removed.

I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
support.
0
Tim
9/8/2008 4:29:52 PM
On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 09:05:07 -0600 (MDT), DC
<nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

>1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>
>If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
>http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
>game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
>and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
>of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
>are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
>thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
>rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

Amazon is known to remove inaccurrate or irrelevant ratings.  For
example, if a large quantity of ratings focuses on a single aspect
(e.g. this game had DRM, one star), it gets ranked down.  If it's well
reasoned (e.g. Normally I'd give a high rating, but for this site, you
may expect to come close to the activation limit, thus I'm forced to
give a low rating), it's unlikely to be removed.  
0
Raymond
9/8/2008 4:38:55 PM
"DC" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message 
news:94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net...
> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
> ..Spore's DRM limits owners to only three activations of
> the game after installation. The point is to prohibit
> software pirates from sharing and reusing activation codes
> over and over, but it also means that if a user happens to
> uninstall and reinstall Spore more than three times for
> completely legitimate reasons, they'll have to contact
> Electronic Arts customer support to request and have
> approved a new authentication on a case-by-case basis.
> Which is precisely what has Amazon users up in arms.
>
> A quick scan of the negative reviews reveals some bitterly
> sensationalistic headlines: "DRM Kills another potentially
> great game," "Not a chance until the DRM goes," and "DRM
> complicates life, removes value." One reviewer, who calls
> the DRM "draconian," even likened a purchase to a rental as
> opposed to an actual ownership of the game, since a player
> could theoretically be barred from playing their copy of
> Spore if they use up their activations and EA refuses to
> allow more. "What you will be left with is a nice, colorful
> $50 coaster. And you will be required to pay for another
> copy/license if you want to continue playing," the user
> writes.
>
> And believe it or not, this backlash comes after EA and
> Maxis made Spore's DRM less stringent, when fans decried
> the originally announced plan to require online
> authentication every 10 days. As for how much the Amazon
> debacle will affect sales of the game remains uncertain,
> but it's probably a PR problem that EA and Maxis could have
> happily lived without.
>
>

I installed it on a laptop for the kids to play and switched off the 
wireless network before doing so and it worked fine.  It has been online 
since, however, so maybe it is time limited somehow.

Either way, it's another reason to simply get a pirated copy next time and 
not have to put up with the bullshit. 


0
Schrodinger
9/8/2008 6:28:59 PM
On Sep 8, 12:29=A0pm, Tim O <tim...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, =A08 Sep 2008 09:05:07 -0600 (MDT), DC
>
> <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> >1Up.comhttp://atu.ca/647
>
> >If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> >http://atu.ca/SPOREyou may be surprised to notice that the
> >game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> >and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> >of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> >are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> >thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> >rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
> I'm no fan of this type of copy protection, and could give less than a
> shit about Spore, but this reeks of some web sites DRM agenda.
>
> Here is my take on this, and what I suggest publishers do... These
> titles are mostly only hot to pirates when they're new. If they
> implement the DRM for the first few months of of the release they
> would protect their program and satisfy long term fans. Perhaps patch
> it or have it do one last "phone home" once the game hits the 20
> dollar price point. After that point, all you would need is the CD key
> and the install limitation would be removed.
The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating.  The DRM-
less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
North America.  So those who pirated the game were and still are
playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
without the game thinking this is a new installation.

> I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
> time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
> support.
As specified above, it's most probably not 3 "installs", it might be 3
different hardware configurations (otherwise you could just copy the
game folder and registry and would be able to install it as many times
as you want). That means, upgrading your video card, buying a new hard
drive, adding memory, installing a Bluray player, etc. could
potentially count as a new installation.  Also, I don't do it as
frequently as other people, but in the last 4 years I've re-installed
Windows 2 times, that means 5 years from now I would probably be out
of luck if I wanted to play a game I bought today.
0
Wolfing
9/8/2008 7:17:48 PM
On Sep 8, 2:17=A0pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating. =A0The DRM-
> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
> North America. =A0So those who pirated the game were and still are
> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
> without the game thinking this is a new installation.

DRM is like locks on your house.  It won't keep out a pro or something
who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.
0
WDS
9/8/2008 8:19:08 PM
WDS wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2:17 pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating.  The DRM-
>> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
>> North America.  So those who pirated the game were and still are
>> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
>> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
>> without the game thinking this is a new installation.
>>     
>
> DRM is like locks on your house.  It won't keep out a pro or something
> who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.
>   

The only difference being you aren't only given 3 keys to your house and 
told "this is all you get."  And every time you enter your house one of 
the keys breaks...  heh

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/8/2008 8:26:57 PM
Thus spake CoinSpin <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net>, Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:26:57
-0400, Anno Domini:

>WDS wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 2:17 pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>   
>>> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating.  The DRM-
>>> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
>>> North America.  So those who pirated the game were and still are
>>> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
>>> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
>>> without the game thinking this is a new installation.
>>>     
>>
>> DRM is like locks on your house.  It won't keep out a pro or something
>> who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.
>>   
>
>The only difference being you aren't only given 3 keys to your house and 
>told "this is all you get."  And every time you enter your house one of 
>the keys breaks...  heh

That analogy is so old, tired & out of date it's worthless anyway. The pro
is the guy who's cracked the game & any 'casual' copyright revolutionary can
avail himself of the benefits. It's mostly easier to install a cracked game
these days (& safer!), than the original DRM/copy protected mess. There is
no such thing as 'casual piracy' any longer - what a complete misnomer lol.

-- 
Nostromo
0
Nostromo
9/8/2008 9:21:55 PM
On Sep 8, 4:26=A0pm, CoinSpin <coin^spam^s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> WDS wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 2:17 pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating. =A0The DR=
M-
> >> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
> >> North America. =A0So those who pirated the game were and still are
> >> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
> >> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
> >> without the game thinking this is a new installation.
>
> > DRM is like locks on your house. =A0It won't keep out a pro or somethin=
g
> > who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.
>
> The only difference being you aren't only given 3 keys to your house and
> told "this is all you get." =A0And every time you enter your house one of
> the keys breaks... =A0heh
>
> CoinSpin

And also, one thing is the standard copy protection, that will do what
he said... dissuade the casual thief, but Spore's DRM is really bad
for the consumer. I personally applaud and hope that the Amazon scores
news (that by now it's pretty much everywhere, I saw it in my yahoo
news page) gets to EA's ears.
0
Wolfing
9/8/2008 9:28:10 PM
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:52 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:

>I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
>time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
>support.

I'm on my third install of Windows in the last 6 months or so.  Full
installs, not repair.  It has caused me to have to contact one place
to get additional activations.
0
Loren
9/9/2008 1:49:57 AM
In article <94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>,
 DC <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
> 
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

Quite a few of them have something else in common: they are from people 
who either have not written any amazon reviews before this, or are from 
people that had one or two reviews a long time ago, plus a negative 
Kindle review a year ago, and now this.

I don't know how widespread that is, but there is definitely some kind 
of organized attempt to rig the vote.

This wouldn't be the first time.  There's some anti-DRM people 
systematically tagging Kindle books with anti-DRM terms and slogans.

It's not just anti-DRM people who try to manipulate Amazon.  When Ron 
Paul's book came out, there was a call on a popular Paul website to go 
give the book five stars, and links to that quickly circulated.  It very 
quickly got several hundred 5 star reviews, and each of those was voted 
as helpful by hundreds of people (yup...not only did the Paul flock 
members have time to go to Amazon, make new accounts, and add 5 star 
reviews, they had time to go vote up each other's reviews).  

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
Tim
9/9/2008 5:51:26 AM
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:

>DRM is like locks on your house.  It won't keep out a pro or something
>who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.

Unfortunately, the casual pirate gets his cracked games from p2p
networks, the same place they get their pirated mp3 music from.

I don't know where some people get the wrong idea that casual game
copying (casual piracy) today would mean copying games from your
friends CDs/diskettes/tapes. People, 80s with Apple IIc, C=64 and
Amiga is long gone. Internet is here.

0
riku
9/9/2008 6:36:43 AM
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:49:57 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:52 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
>>time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
>>support.
>
>I'm on my third install of Windows in the last 6 months or so.  Full
>installs, not repair.  It has caused me to have to contact one place
>to get additional activations.

I don't want to stray too far off the point, but what exactly are you
doing to your machine that requires that? It used to be at least once
a year with Windows 98, but since 2000 came out, the number of times
I've needed to reformat and reinstall the OS can be counted on one
hand. Thats maintaining about 5 machines, too.

My old gaming rig, a 3ghz Athlon XP became my wifes PC when I
upgraded. That computer has a 4 year old install of XP thats still
going fine.
0
Tim
9/9/2008 9:56:24 AM
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:21:55 +1000, Nostromo <nospam@forme.org> wrote:

>That analogy is so old, tired & out of date it's worthless anyway. The pro
>is the guy who's cracked the game & any 'casual' copyright revolutionary can
>avail himself of the benefits. It's mostly easier to install a cracked game
>these days (& safer!), than the original DRM/copy protected mess. There is
>no such thing as 'casual piracy' any longer - what a complete misnomer lol.

One (and probably the only) thing I can agree with Nostromo about
gaming piracy.

0
riku
9/9/2008 10:50:15 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Tim O <timo56@removehotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:49:57 -0700, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:52 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
>>>time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
>>>support.
>>
>>I'm on my third install of Windows in the last 6 months or so.  Full
>>installs, not repair.  It has caused me to have to contact one place
>>to get additional activations.
> 
> I don't want to stray too far off the point, but what exactly are you
> doing to your machine that requires that?

Maybe he's playing games on it. Some games have DRM that not only
cripples the game itself, but the entire PC. And reinstalling Windows
is the easiest way to fix that.

Looks like a nice vicious cycle, that.


mcv.
-- 
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real.                  -- Zachriel
0
mcv
9/9/2008 11:50:06 AM
Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>,
>  DC <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>   
>> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>>
>> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
>> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
>> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
>> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
>> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
>> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
>> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
>> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>>     
>
> Quite a few of them have something else in common: they are from people 
> who either have not written any amazon reviews before this, or are from 
> people that had one or two reviews a long time ago, plus a negative 
> Kindle review a year ago, and now this.
>
> I don't know how widespread that is, but there is definitely some kind 
> of organized attempt to rig the vote.
>
> This wouldn't be the first time.  There's some anti-DRM people 
> systematically tagging Kindle books with anti-DRM terms and slogans.
>
> It's not just anti-DRM people who try to manipulate Amazon.  When Ron 
> Paul's book came out, there was a call on a popular Paul website to go 
> give the book five stars, and links to that quickly circulated.  It very 
> quickly got several hundred 5 star reviews, and each of those was voted 
> as helpful by hundreds of people (yup...not only did the Paul flock 
> members have time to go to Amazon, make new accounts, and add 5 star 
> reviews, they had time to go vote up each other's reviews).  
>   

I love how quickly conspiracy theorists can jump to conclusions.  You do 
realize that it could just be that people REALLY DON'T LIKE THE DRM, 
don't you?  Spore is one of those games that appeals to a wider, 
different audience, so maybe those people have never written reviews 
because they've never had cause to.  Maybe they are younger or older 
than the usual demographic that buys and rates games at Amazon.  Or 
maybe, just maybe, they've just put up with shortcomings in the past and 
never felt the need to complain about anything until they ran into 
something that got them so up in arms they felt the need to rebel and 
make their voice heard!

Seriously, the DRM on Spore is ridiculous and only punishes and limits 
the legitimate purchasers of the game, it will not stop the hardcore 
pirates.  It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to think that maybe those 
legitimate purchasers are upset and want people to know about it.  Maybe 
they (like ALL other protesters EVER) are hoping that their viewpoints 
will eventually make their way to someone who matters and can make a 
difference, like the game publishing company.

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/9/2008 1:58:22 PM
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:56:24 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:49:57 -0700, Loren Pechtel
><lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:52 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
>>>time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
>>>support.
>>
>>I'm on my third install of Windows in the last 6 months or so.  Full
>>installs, not repair.  It has caused me to have to contact one place
>>to get additional activations.
>
>I don't want to stray too far off the point, but what exactly are you
>doing to your machine that requires that? It used to be at least once
>a year with Windows 98, but since 2000 came out, the number of times
>I've needed to reformat and reinstall the OS can be counted on one
>hand. Thats maintaining about 5 machines, too.
>
>My old gaming rig, a 3ghz Athlon XP became my wifes PC when I
>upgraded. That computer has a 4 year old install of XP thats still
>going fine.

I haven't done anything oddball that I'm aware of.

One was a barf during a motherboard replacement--after the repair
install Windows decided it was running on drive E, one was Windows
deciding that if I pressed a key at the login prompt that it was no
longer going to act upon the keyboard or mouse.  (It was *NOT*
hung--wait and the screen saver kicked in.  Move the mouse and it
restored--but the mouse pointer didn't move.)
0
Loren
9/9/2008 4:49:12 PM
SPORE ??? Hmmm ...I can't get by thinking of this as BLACK & WHITE 3
Great fun to start & mess around in but soon get bored .
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse


0
Trimble
9/9/2008 5:16:33 PM
....also it's interesting that nearly all of this thread is Re: the DRM 
rather than the Game ??
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse(that say 'Dull Game') 


0
Trimble
9/9/2008 5:29:36 PM
"Wolfing" <wolfing1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:2ba68005-2929-4851-986d-f13258c98e6b@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 8, 4:26 pm, CoinSpin <coin^spam^s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> WDS wrote:
>> > On Sep 8, 2:17 pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating. The DRM-
>> >> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
>> >> North America. So those who pirated the game were and still are
>> >> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
>> >> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
>> >> without the game thinking this is a new installation.
>>
>> > DRM is like locks on your house. It won't keep out a pro or something
>> > who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.
>>
>> The only difference being you aren't only given 3 keys to your house and
>> told "this is all you get." And every time you enter your house one of
>> the keys breaks... heh
>>
>> CoinSpin
>
> And also, one thing is the standard copy protection, that will do what
> he said... dissuade the casual thief, but Spore's DRM is really bad
> for the consumer. I personally applaud and hope that the Amazon scores
> news (that by now it's pretty much everywhere, I saw it in my yahoo
> news page) gets to EA's ears.

Can't we report EA to trading standards in the Uk? After all I'm sure 
neither the advertising on Amazon nor the box mention anywhere that one only 
has a maximum of three installs (across hardware), surely this is a 
misrepresentation of the contents of the box.

RobP 

0
Rob
9/9/2008 5:29:38 PM
Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> ...also it's interesting that nearly all of this thread is Re: the DRM 
> rather than the Game ??


That'd be because the thread is about comments about DRM and not the 
game no?
0
Shawk
9/9/2008 6:33:57 PM
In article <XIWdncCulYljHVvVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com>,
 CoinSpin <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote:
> I love how quickly conspiracy theorists can jump to conclusions.  You do 
> realize that it could just be that people REALLY DON'T LIKE THE DRM, 
> don't you?  Spore is one of those games that appeals to a wider, 
> different audience, so maybe those people have never written reviews 
> because they've never had cause to.  Maybe they are younger or older 
> than the usual demographic that buys and rates games at Amazon.  Or 
> maybe, just maybe, they've just put up with shortcomings in the past and 
> never felt the need to complain about anything until they ran into 
> something that got them so up in arms they felt the need to rebel and 
> make their voice heard!

Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting 
their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your 
explanations.



-- 
--Tim Smith
0
Tim
9/9/2008 6:56:59 PM
Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <XIWdncCulYljHVvVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com>,
>  CoinSpin <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote:
>   
>> I love how quickly conspiracy theorists can jump to conclusions.  You do 
>> realize that it could just be that people REALLY DON'T LIKE THE DRM, 
>> don't you?  Spore is one of those games that appeals to a wider, 
>> different audience, so maybe those people have never written reviews 
>> because they've never had cause to.  Maybe they are younger or older 
>> than the usual demographic that buys and rates games at Amazon.  Or 
>> maybe, just maybe, they've just put up with shortcomings in the past and 
>> never felt the need to complain about anything until they ran into 
>> something that got them so up in arms they felt the need to rebel and 
>> make their voice heard!
>>     
>
> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting 
> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your 
> explanations.
>   

Umm, because draconian DRM measures are turning them off from buying the 
game in the first place.

Doesn't rule out any of my explanations at all, just strengthens 
them...  They are protesting the DRM that is souring their potential 
purchase in a medium that they hope will get some attention, since the 
developers obviously don't give 2 shits about the average (as in silent) 
consumer's opinion.

But I do have one area that I have to agree with you there...  There 
should NEVER be "customer reviews" of a title allowed prior to any 
customers actually HAVING the product.  That's just plain silly.

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/9/2008 7:36:21 PM
On Sep 9, 11:56=A0am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet. =A0They are posting
> their reviews *before* trying the game. =A0That rules out most of your
> explanations.

But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)

--
Darin Johnson
0
Darin
9/9/2008 8:04:34 PM
Darin Johnson wrote:
> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>   
>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>> explanations.
>>     
>
> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>   

I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to have 
consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the product, so 
how can the consumers rate it before it's even available for sale?  Up 
until the date of release, the only people capable of truly "reviewing" 
a game would be the press and people given early copies for evaluation.

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/9/2008 8:41:15 PM
"Darin Johnson" <darin@usa.net> wrote in message 
news:72088a8a-e226-438e-b997-f558430020e0@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet. They are posting
>> their reviews *before* trying the game. That rules out most of your
>> explanations.
>
> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>
> --
> Darin Johnson

Agreed. None of the professional reviewers mention DRM or activation limits. 
To me this is a fundamental part of the merchantable package as it directly 
affects its value.

I am of the belief that the advertising and the packaging of these DRM laden 
games is in breach of the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 with respect to 'Of 
Satisfactory Quality'.

A consumer should know, before they buy a game, how often they can activate 
or install it.  Not indicating these limits directly affects the 
Merchantable quality and value of the package, yet it is never placed on the 
packaging or advertising. This is a misrepresentation of the contents of the 
box as a consumer can reasonably expect to install a piece of software as 
often as they like, provided that there is only ever one instance of the 
installation at any one time and that they are the legal owners of the 
CD/DVD.

I am in communications with the Uk Trading Standards body about this and 
hope to pursue this further.

RobP 

0
Rob
9/9/2008 8:51:19 PM
Rob P wrote:
> "Darin Johnson" <darin@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:72088a8a-e226-438e-b997-f558430020e0@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet. They are
>>> posting their reviews *before* trying the game. That rules out most
>>> of your explanations.
>>
>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>
>> --
>> Darin Johnson
>
> Agreed. None of the professional reviewers mention DRM or activation
> limits. To me this is a fundamental part of the merchantable package
> as it directly affects its value.
>
> I am of the belief that the advertising and the packaging of these
> DRM laden games is in breach of the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 with
> respect to 'Of Satisfactory Quality'.
>
> A consumer should know, before they buy a game, how often they can
> activate or install it.  Not indicating these limits directly affects
> the Merchantable quality and value of the package, yet it is never
> placed on the packaging or advertising. This is a misrepresentation
> of the contents of the box as a consumer can reasonably expect to
> install a piece of software as often as they like, provided that
> there is only ever one instance of the installation at any one time
> and that they are the legal owners of the CD/DVD.
>
> I am in communications with the Uk Trading Standards body about this
> and hope to pursue this further.
>
Keep us informed please?  And I wish you luck.

-- 
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08 


0
Dimensional
9/10/2008 1:15:29 AM
"CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:LKqdnaD9Z7r2QlvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Darin Johnson wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
>>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>>> explanations.
>>>
>>
>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>
>
> I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to have 
> consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the product, so how 
> can the consumers rate it before it's even available for sale?

I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, and 
accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.


0
SpammersDie
9/10/2008 2:40:39 AM
SpammersDie wrote:
> "CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:LKqdnaD9Z7r2QlvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>   
>> Darin Johnson wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
>>>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>>>> explanations.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>>
>>>       
>> I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to have 
>> consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the product, so how 
>> can the consumers rate it before it's even available for sale?
>>     
>
> I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, and 
> accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.
>   

Doesn't it?  I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, 
but they are giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue 
ONLY, without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it 
could have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...  And have 
this DRM issue...  But if you just look at the Amazon score of 1 star, 
without delving deeper into why it's only got 1 star, you'd get a false 
impression that the entire game sucks ass.

So, yes, I'd say accuracy of the reviews should be questioned.  I stick 
by my earlier comment, letting someone rate a game they have NEVER EVEN 
PLAYED is just ridiculous.  But I'm torn, because I applaud the 
reviewers for attempting to make a stand against the  DRM through this 
review process...  Bah, it's making me schizophrenic!

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/10/2008 3:46:01 AM
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:51:26 -0700, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>In article <94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>,
> DC <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>> 
>> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
>> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
>> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
>> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
>> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
>> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
>> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
>> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
>Quite a few of them have something else in common: they are from people 
>who either have not written any amazon reviews before this, or are from 
>people that had one or two reviews a long time ago, plus a negative 
>Kindle review a year ago, and now this.
>
>I don't know how widespread that is, but there is definitely some kind 
>of organized attempt to rig the vote.
>
>This wouldn't be the first time.  There's some anti-DRM people 
>systematically tagging Kindle books with anti-DRM terms and slogans.
>
>It's not just anti-DRM people who try to manipulate Amazon.  When Ron 
>Paul's book came out, there was a call on a popular Paul website to go 
>give the book five stars, and links to that quickly circulated.  It very 
>quickly got several hundred 5 star reviews, and each of those was voted 
>as helpful by hundreds of people (yup...not only did the Paul flock 
>members have time to go to Amazon, make new accounts, and add 5 star 
>reviews, they had time to go vote up each other's reviews).  
>
>-- 
>--Tim Smith

Hey, Tim.

I have refused to buy EA's Mass Effect because it uses the same DRM as
Spore, akthough I would really like to buy the game. I have never
pirated any computer-games, so a torrent alternative is not a personal
option. In the case of Spore, it seems a universally awful game from
my personal view, but I can understand the DRM uproar from those who
would like to play the game. EA is in the process of acquiring Take
Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
whenever the game is uninstalled. Easily implemented in a patch to
Spore or Mass Effect. Bioshock originally had a far more stringent DRM
scheme, but (unlike EA so far) Take Two/2K Games listened to the
customers and migrated to the current DRM scheme after the first 2
patches - applicable to all copies of the game regardless of purchase
time.

John Lewis

0
john
9/10/2008 5:22:56 AM
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:29:36 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>...also it's interesting that nearly all of this thread is Re: the DRM 
>rather than the Game ??
>(\__/)
>(='.'=)
>(")_(")  mouse(that say 'Dull Game') 
>
>


Having a teeny-weeny comprehension problem today, mousey. Please read
the header to this thread. If you want to discuss the (lack of) virtue
in the game-play of Spore, feel free to start another relevant thread.

John Lewis

0
john
9/10/2008 5:26:16 AM
riku wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:21:55 +1000, Nostromo <nospam@forme.org> wrote:
> 
>> That analogy is so old, tired & out of date it's worthless anyway. The pro
>> is the guy who's cracked the game & any 'casual' copyright revolutionary can
>> avail himself of the benefits. It's mostly easier to install a cracked game
>> these days (& safer!), than the original DRM/copy protected mess. There is
>> no such thing as 'casual piracy' any longer - what a complete misnomer lol.
> 
> One (and probably the only) thing I can agree with Nostromo about
> gaming piracy.

What, you don't agree that two women are more fun in bed than two men? 
Oh well, to each there own! ;-p

-- 
Nostromo
0
Nostromo
9/10/2008 6:21:37 AM
>>>
>>
>> I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, and 
>> accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.
>>
>
> Doesn't it?
> I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, but they are 
> giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue ONLY,

The score is a separate thing from the review. Scores are inherently 
subjective and can't really be "disputed." I'm talking about the factual 
assertions in the text of the reviews, which I haven't seen anyone 
disputing.


> without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it could 
> have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...

But if it comes packaged in a DRM that these reviewers find unacceptable, 
then the product is worthless and it's the product that's being reviewed. It 
just doesn't matter how wonderful the gameplay is if people won't buy it 
because of the DRM - hence, a "1 star" in the DRM category *should* limit 
the total score to 1. It also works the other way: if the gameplay is a "1", 
it doesn't matter if the game has no DRM at all - the total score can still 
be no better than 1.



> And have this DRM issue...  But if you just look at the Amazon score of 1 
> star, without delving deeper into why it's only got 1 star, you'd get a 
> false impression that the entire game sucks ass.

That's only if you think of the total score as an "average" of the component 
scores. For lower-priority categories like graphics, that makes some sense 
but the really critical categories like gameplay, bug-freeness and DRM 
(really a subcategory of the "bug-freeness" category) can and should act as 
ceilings on the total score.






0
SpammersDie
9/10/2008 6:27:57 AM
CoinSpin wrote:

> Seriously, the DRM on Spore is ridiculous and only punishes and limits 
> the legitimate purchasers of the game, it will not stop the hardcore 
> pirates.  It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to think that maybe those 
> legitimate purchasers are upset and want people to know about it.  Maybe 
> they (like ALL other protesters EVER) are hoping that their viewpoints 
> will eventually make their way to someone who matters and can make a 
> difference, like the game publishing company.

Don't be ridiculous CS! It's clearly a case of terrorists invading our 
gaming world & trying to subvert all the legit purchases & complaints 
people have, of which there are none of course! There are plenty of 
other top billing games by way of example, that not even one person 
complained about when they came out! <G>

Honestly, I'm not even going to P2P this game I'm so put off by all the 
DRM crap, even if the 'pre-loved' version has it all stripped out, just 
on _principle_. Why would I want to take the chance to enjoy this title 
so if & when I decide to pay for it (or any other games from the same 
dev/publisher), they can just go & butt-rape me again with the next DRM 
infested title, because they've assumed my payment is reward for their 
gross arrogance, idiocy & greed, & that legit customers don't mind 
putting up with their shit...? I think not, & hopefully enough fans do 
the same to make it hurt where it counts.

-- 
Nostromo
0
Nostromo
9/10/2008 6:38:12 AM
CoinSpin wrote:
> SpammersDie wrote:
>> "CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>> news:LKqdnaD9Z7r2QlvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>  
>>> Darin Johnson wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
>>>>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>>>>> explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>>>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>>>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>>>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to 
>>> have consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the 
>>> product, so how can the consumers rate it before it's even available 
>>> for sale?
>>>     
>>
>> I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, 
>> and accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.
>>   
> 
> Doesn't it?  I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, 
> but they are giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue 
> ONLY, without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it 
> could have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...  And have 
> this DRM issue...  But if you just look at the Amazon score of 1 star, 
> without delving deeper into why it's only got 1 star, you'd get a false 
> impression that the entire game sucks ass.
> 
> So, yes, I'd say accuracy of the reviews should be questioned.  I stick 
> by my earlier comment, letting someone rate a game they have NEVER EVEN 
> PLAYED is just ridiculous.  But I'm torn, because I applaud the 
> reviewers for attempting to make a stand against the  DRM through this 
> review process...  Bah, it's making me schizophrenic!

Dude, anyone using Amazon review scores for judging a game gets 
everything they ask for & deserve! ;-p

Seriously, does anybody here just look at a number & NOT read the 
review(s)? Even semi-professional reviews on IGN & Gamespot, which I 
read occasionally & generally consider close to my tastes, depending on 
the reviewer, don't always agree with me on the numbers. Sure, I may 
only skim a 32% score, but anything from 50%+ warrants a closer read, as 
I sometimes find my interest piqued enough, even on a low scoring game, 
to look into it further. What's everyone else's 'turkey' threshold score?

-- 
Nostromo
0
Nostromo
9/10/2008 6:52:20 AM
"Tim O" <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> Here is my take on this, and what I suggest publishers do... These
> titles are mostly only hot to pirates when they're new. If they
> implement the DRM for the first few months of of the release they
> would protect their program and satisfy long term fans.

The cracked version of Spore was on usenet around a week before the US 
release.

~None 


0
none
9/10/2008 11:25:27 AM
Nostromo wrote:
> CoinSpin wrote:
>> SpammersDie wrote:
>>> "CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:LKqdnaD9Z7r2QlvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>  
>>>> Darin Johnson wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are 
>>>>>> posting
>>>>>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>>>>>> explanations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>>>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>>>>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>>>>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>>>>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>> I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to 
>>>> have consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the 
>>>> product, so how can the consumers rate it before it's even 
>>>> available for sale?
>>>>     
>>>
>>> I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, 
>>> and accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.
>>>   
>>
>> Doesn't it?  I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, 
>> but they are giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM 
>> issue ONLY, without having played a single solitary second of the 
>> game.  So it could have incredible, awesome, radically fun game 
>> play...  And have this DRM issue...  But if you just look at the 
>> Amazon score of 1 star, without delving deeper into why it's only got 
>> 1 star, you'd get a false impression that the entire game sucks ass.
>>
>> So, yes, I'd say accuracy of the reviews should be questioned.  I 
>> stick by my earlier comment, letting someone rate a game they have 
>> NEVER EVEN PLAYED is just ridiculous.  But I'm torn, because I 
>> applaud the reviewers for attempting to make a stand against the  DRM 
>> through this review process...  Bah, it's making me schizophrenic!
>
> Dude, anyone using Amazon review scores for judging a game gets 
> everything they ask for & deserve! ;-p
>
> Seriously, does anybody here just look at a number & NOT read the 
> review(s)? Even semi-professional reviews on IGN & Gamespot, which I 
> read occasionally & generally consider close to my tastes, depending 
> on the reviewer, don't always agree with me on the numbers. Sure, I 
> may only skim a 32% score, but anything from 50%+ warrants a closer 
> read, as I sometimes find my interest piqued enough, even on a low 
> scoring game, to look into it further. What's everyone else's 'turkey' 
> threshold score?

Well, Amazon is supposed to be a simplified online buying experience 
with a tremendous selection available to the consumer.  If Joe or Jane 
Average jump on Amazon, doing a quick look for a product, they might use 
the rating process as an indicator of whether the product is worth even 
looking at or not.  Hell, Amazon even offers the rating system as one of 
the methods for *sorting* categories.  So, to the untrained and/or 
uneducated consumer, the customer rating can really affect the 
likelihood of purchase.

Me, I'm much more apt to delve deeper and look at multiple reviews, 
especially independent player reviews.  If a title looks like something 
I'd be interested in, I'll give it a look even if the scores are 
atrocious.  Sometimes the scores are a result of other issues (like DRM 
or initial bugs) that later patches remedy, so I'll come back and check 
them out a while after the initial release.  But, in general, I pay 
attention to the initial scores at release to know what to stay away 
from (at that moment).  And I think my "turkey" threshold is about the 
same as yours there, Nos.

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/10/2008 12:27:09 PM
On Sep 9, 10:22=A0pm, john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:51:26 -0700, Tim Smith
>
>
>
> <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >In article <94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549c...@pseudo.borked.net>,
> > DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> >> 1Up.comhttp://atu.ca/647
>
> >> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> >>http://atu.ca/SPOREyou may be surprised to notice that the
> >> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> >> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> >> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> >> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> >> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> >> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
> >Quite a few of them have something else in common: they are from people
> >who either have not written any amazon reviews before this, or are from
> >people that had one or two reviews a long time ago, plus a negative
> >Kindle review a year ago, and now this.
>
> >I don't know how widespread that is, but there is definitely some kind
> >of organized attempt to rig the vote.
>
> >This wouldn't be the first time. =A0There's some anti-DRM people
> >systematically tagging Kindle books with anti-DRM terms and slogans.
>
> >It's not just anti-DRM people who try to manipulate Amazon. =A0When Ron
> >Paul's book came out, there was a call on a popular Paul website to go
> >give the book five stars, and links to that quickly circulated. =A0It ve=
ry
> >quickly got several hundred 5 star reviews, and each of those was voted
> >as helpful by hundreds of people (yup...not only did the Paul flock
> >members have time to go to Amazon, make new accounts, and add 5 star
> >reviews, they had time to go vote up each other's reviews). =A0
>
> >--
> >--Tim Smith
>
> Hey, Tim.
>
> I have refused to buy EA's Mass Effect because it uses the same DRM as
> Spore, akthough I would really like to buy the game. I have never
> pirated any computer-games, so a torrent alternative is not a personal
> option. In the case of Spore, it seems a universally awful game from
> my personal view, but I can understand the DRM uproar from those who
> would like to play the game. EA is in the process of acquiring Take
> Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
> copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
> whenever the game is uninstalled. Easily implemented in a patch to
> Spore or Mass Effect. Bioshock originally had a far more stringent DRM
> scheme, but (unlike EA so far) Take Two/2K Games listened to the
> customers and migrated to the current DRM scheme after the first 2
> patches - applicable to all copies of the game regardless of purchase
> time.
>
> John Lewis

Hmm.. I have Mass Effect.  I have had some serious problems with the
system hanging for long periods when there is a CD in the drive.  I'm
not sure if it's the DRM that came with Mass Effect or if the drive
itself isn't compatible with my HD, as I had some difficulty
installing windows as well and had compatibility issues between it and
my old HD. but I don't remember that particular problem before
installing Mass Effect - I'm not absolutely sure though.  I haven't
put any other CDs in the drive since so it might have just been the ME
CD too.

Is there somewhere you can point me to for people having problems with
this DRM?

- Justisaur

0
Justisaur
9/10/2008 6:01:58 PM
Sorry to hear Re's John (the Mighty) Lewis's  "comprehension
problem"..hopefully it is indeed Teeny Weenie.
....The fact that lots want to discuss the Spore DRM is clear , powerful
symptom
that the game is not interesting them , not enough anyway to take the
collective minds(s)
off the DRM
..
If the game itself is in fact interesting enough to deserve a Thread then
one of those interested here would have started one ?
It would be far to arrogant & forward for one such as I to go against the
clear desires of the masses & start such a Thread .
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse(yea that told 'im proper !)



0
Trimble
9/10/2008 6:51:08 PM
Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> Sorry to hear Re's John (the Mighty) Lewis's  "comprehension
> problem"..hopefully it is indeed Teeny Weenie.


You can't be that dim surely?


> ...The fact that lots want to discuss the Spore DRM is clear , powerful
> symptom
> that the game is not interesting them , not enough anyway to take the
> collective minds(s)
> off the DRM


They're discussing DRM because this thread is about DRM...


> If the game itself is in fact interesting enough to deserve a Thread then
> one of those interested here would have started one ?
> It would be far to arrogant & forward for one such as I to go against the
> clear desires of the masses & start such a Thread .


Like the 4th thread below this one started on the 7th by Schrodinger 
with over 30 replies?

0
Shawk
9/10/2008 7:36:43 PM
none wrote:
> "Tim O" <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is my take on this, and what I suggest publishers do... These
>> titles are mostly only hot to pirates when they're new. If they
>> implement the DRM for the first few months of of the release they
>> would protect their program and satisfy long term fans.
>
> The cracked version of Spore was on usenet around a week before the US
> release.
>
You'd think the publishers would learn something from the fact that pirated 
copies keep showing up days or weeks before the "legal" versions.  Like the 
problem is not someone buying one and then copying it for the world?  And 
DRM anti-copying measures on the copies they sell aren't going to do a thing 
about large scale piracy because the real software pirates are tapping in 
much farther up the distribution chain?

-- 
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08 


0
Dimensional
9/10/2008 7:38:43 PM
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:51:08 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>Sorry to hear Re's John (the Mighty) Lewis's  "comprehension
>problem"..hopefully it is indeed Teeny Weenie.
>...The fact that lots want to discuss the Spore DRM is clear , powerful
>symptom
>that the game is not interesting them , not enough anyway to take the
>collective minds(s)
>off the DRM
>.
>If the game itself is in fact interesting enough to deserve a Thread then
>one of those interested here would have started one ?
>It would be far to arrogant & forward for one such as I to go against the
>clear desires of the masses & start such a Thread .
>(\__/)
>(='.'=)
>(")_(")  mouse(yea that told 'im proper !)

Huh, you show yourself in your "true colors" - just a timid little
mouse.......... Here let me oblige on your behalf...

John Lewis

John Lewis

>
>
>

0
john
9/11/2008 12:00:25 AM
Kidding. Let's talk some more about the DRM shit. <EG>

Hey, 2000 (92%) of Amazon buyers can't be wrong, can they? :)

See kids, piracy is bad...hang on, or is it anti-piracy? <scratched 
head> Or is it 
anti-copyright-revolutionary-anti-best-practices-anti-cartel-mafiaa-tactics 
that's brought this on...? <confused> :-/

-- 
Nostromo...who is not even going to P2P this turkey because it's as 
entertaining as it could possibly be already! >8^D
0
Nostromo
9/11/2008 1:47:23 AM
Nostromo wrote:
> Kidding. Let's talk some more about the DRM shit. <EG>
>
> Hey, 2000 (92%) of Amazon buyers can't be wrong, can they? :)
>
> See kids, piracy is bad...hang on, or is it anti-piracy? <scratched 
> head> Or is it 
> anti-copyright-revolutionary-anti-best-practices-anti-cartel-mafiaa-tactics 
> that's brought this on...? <confused> :-/
>

I thought it was "drugs are bad" and "piracy is good - as long as you 
are Johnny Depp" or something along those lines.

May have gotten my signals crossed, though...

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/11/2008 2:09:09 AM
On the 10 Sep 2008, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:

<snip>

> they might just consider copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5
> installations, each RECOVERABLE whenever the game is uninstalled.

That assumes that you managed to run the uninstall program, though. If 
you've had a problem with Windows that meant that you had to reformat 
the machine then the activation's still gone, I would imagine.

-- 
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
0
Graham
9/11/2008 4:37:52 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:37:52 +0100, Graham Thurlwell
<nospam@jades.org> wrote:

>On the 10 Sep 2008, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> they might just consider copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5
>> installations, each RECOVERABLE whenever the game is uninstalled.
>
>That assumes that you managed to run the uninstall program, though. If 
>you've had a problem with Windows that meant that you had to reformat 
>the machine then the activation's still gone, I would imagine.
>

Not if you have generated one or more image/incremental backups of
your system (C:) drive after installing the game. Just recover the
latest image. Added benefit --  no need to re-install Windows. Anybody
who does not regularly image backup their system partition, or perform
a System Restore before installing new drivers or applications
deserves the consequences.

Anyway, in many cases of problems with Windows integrity, an uninstall
of an application can still be successfully performed before taking
any more drastic measures to rectify the problem.

John Lewis



>Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
>The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
>
>nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!

0
john
9/11/2008 6:13:12 PM
On Sep 9, 10:22=A0pm, john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
> EA is in the process of acquiring Take
> Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
> copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
> whenever the game is uninstalled.

How about no DRM at all?  I don't want my game to have to
call home to a server to get permission every time I install a
game.  It doesn't fix the fundamental problem that you're
relying on the publisher's infrastructure to remain around
and accessible for as long as you want to play the game.
0
Darin
9/11/2008 7:23:07 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Darin Johnson
<darin@usa.net> wrote:

>On Sep 9, 10:22=A0pm, john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>> EA is in the process of acquiring Take
>> Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
>> copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
>> whenever the game is uninstalled.
>
>How about no DRM at all?  I don't want my game to have to
>call home to a server to get permission every time I install a
>game.  It doesn't fix the fundamental problem that you're
>relying on the publisher's infrastructure to remain around
>and accessible for as long as you want to play the game.


I agree entirely!!! But the paying customer suffers the consequences
of rampant piracy. No piracy, no DRM -- except for Valve, who have
another few Valve-benefiting reasons to permanently attach their
purchasers to Valve via Steam. 

John Lewis
0
john
9/11/2008 8:44:13 PM
John Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Darin Johnson
> <darin@usa.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 9, 10:22=A0pm, john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>> EA is in the process of acquiring Take
>>> Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
>>> copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
>>> whenever the game is uninstalled.
>> How about no DRM at all?  I don't want my game to have to
>> call home to a server to get permission every time I install a
>> game.  It doesn't fix the fundamental problem that you're
>> relying on the publisher's infrastructure to remain around
>> and accessible for as long as you want to play the game.
> 
> 
> I agree entirely!!! But the paying customer suffers the consequences
> of rampant piracy. No piracy, no DRM -- except for Valve, who have
> another few Valve-benefiting reasons to permanently attach their
> purchasers to Valve via Steam. 


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7604405.stm

0
Shawk
9/11/2008 10:09:26 PM
"SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message 
news:NNJxk.210305$102.14161@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>> I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, but they are 
>> giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue ONLY,
> The score is a separate thing from the review. Scores are inherently 
> subjective and can't really be "disputed." I'm talking about the factual 
> assertions in the text of the reviews, which I haven't seen anyone 
> disputing.
>> without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it could 
>> have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...
> But if it comes packaged in a DRM that these reviewers find unacceptable, 
> then the product is worthless and it's the product that's being reviewed. 
> It just doesn't matter how wonderful the gameplay is if people won't buy 
> it because of the DRM - hence, a "1 star" in the DRM category *should* 
> limit the total score to 1. It also works the other way: if the gameplay 
> is a "1", it doesn't matter if the game has no DRM at all - the total 
> score can still be no better than 1.

I totally agree that DRM should be included in the score - it's ever bit as 
important as the gameplay if you can't even GET to the gameplay due to the 
DRM.

These fucking publishers go on and on about "piracy destroying the PC games 
industry" and yet keep putting in more and more DRM that pisses off more and 
more people. If a gamer can just download a pirate copy of a game for free 
without any DRM, or pay $50-$60 for a game with draconian DRM, which do you 
think they are going to do? Why would anybody buy these games?

How exactly do I buy a game without DRM, supporting the developer while 
bypassing the publisher? 


0
Kroagnon
9/11/2008 11:18:48 PM
On 2008-09-11, Kroagnon <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote:
>
> How exactly do I buy a game without DRM, supporting the developer while 
> bypassing the publisher? 

There is no general way to bypass the publisher. If you purchase the
game then get the no-DRM crack, however, you can buy your game and
play it too.

Legality may vary.

Cheers,
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs
0
Bent
9/11/2008 11:22:59 PM
Kroagnon wrote:
> "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message 
> news:NNJxk.210305$102.14161@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>   
>>> I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, but they are 
>>> giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue ONLY,
>>>       
>> The score is a separate thing from the review. Scores are inherently 
>> subjective and can't really be "disputed." I'm talking about the factual 
>> assertions in the text of the reviews, which I haven't seen anyone 
>> disputing.
>>     
>>> without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it could 
>>> have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...
>>>       
>> But if it comes packaged in a DRM that these reviewers find unacceptable, 
>> then the product is worthless and it's the product that's being reviewed. 
>> It just doesn't matter how wonderful the gameplay is if people won't buy 
>> it because of the DRM - hence, a "1 star" in the DRM category *should* 
>> limit the total score to 1. It also works the other way: if the gameplay 
>> is a "1", it doesn't matter if the game has no DRM at all - the total 
>> score can still be no better than 1.
>>     
>
> I totally agree that DRM should be included in the score - it's ever bit as 
> important as the gameplay if you can't even GET to the gameplay due to the 
> DRM.
>
> These fucking publishers go on and on about "piracy destroying the PC games 
> industry" and yet keep putting in more and more DRM that pisses off more and 
> more people. If a gamer can just download a pirate copy of a game for free 
> without any DRM, or pay $50-$60 for a game with draconian DRM, which do you 
> think they are going to do? Why would anybody buy these games?
>
>   

And people wonder why "PC games are failing" these days...  Many of the 
titles are available on consoles, where you can go and play to your 
heart's content without having to deal with DRM issues - it's all 
built-in in a sub-level you never really even have to acknowledge on the 
console.  Pretty sad when consoles are becoming more "plug & play" than 
the PCs that originated the phrase.

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/11/2008 11:34:16 PM
"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:
> Anybody
> who does not regularly image backup their system partition, or perform
> a System Restore before installing new drivers or applications
> deserves the consequences.

Err...what? Why on earth would you waste time and space backing up Windows 
or your applications, both of which can be easily reinstalled? Anything that 
traps system calls (as SecuROM does) may or may not work with system resore. 
Just as you can't use system restore to remove most spyware/worms - which, 
let's face it, is essentially what SecuROM is.

~None 


0
none
9/12/2008 12:45:21 PM
CoinSpin wrote:
> Pretty sad when consoles are becoming more "plug & play" than 
> the PCs that originated the phrase.

Nitpick: I'm pretty sure it was the Mac that invented "plug & play."
0
David
9/13/2008 12:22:59 AM
Rob P wrote:
> I am in communications with the Uk Trading Standards body about this and 
> hope to pursue this further.

More power to you.  Unfortunately the computing industry in general has 
done its best over the years to avoid having to live up to trading 
standards, to the extent in some cases claiming that providing you a 
disk was a "service" and not a "product" (which has totally different 
liability laws)
0
David
9/13/2008 12:27:13 AM
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:22:56 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, John Lewis
wrote: 

[snip]

>I have refused to buy EA's Mass Effect because it uses the same DRM as
>Spore, akthough I would really like to buy the game. I have never
>pirated any computer-games, so a torrent alternative is not a personal
>option. In the case of Spore, it seems a universally awful game from
>my personal view, but I can understand the DRM uproar from those who
>would like to play the game. EA is in the process of acquiring Take
>Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
>copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
>whenever the game is uninstalled. Easily implemented in a patch to
>Spore or Mass Effect. Bioshock originally had a far more stringent DRM
>scheme, but (unlike EA so far) Take Two/2K Games listened to the
>customers and migrated to the current DRM scheme after the first 2
>patches - applicable to all copies of the game regardless of purchase
>time.
>
I'm guessing your eye is especially turned toward First-sale doctrine in such
cases.

Thanks for the info on Mass Effect. I appreciate knowing which companies are
engaging in these practices, and for what games. It's nice to know that at
least 2k thinks we should be at liberty to resell our games in accordance with
the laws of our country, instead the fiat law of their DRM code.

It's as if individual companies are creating their own set of binding laws on
our machines with these DRM routines, which are independent and often defiant
of actual common law governing purchases. Each one has a different set of
requirements and allowed behaviors, and the lists just keep getting longer and
less attractive. Without representation/without recourse.

I think it's gotten quite out of hand. I want to *play games*, not become a
lawyer.

Anyway, thanks again. Keep the information coming.

-- 
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Bj�rk
0
Zaghadka
9/13/2008 2:31:10 AM
David Alex Lamb wrote:
> CoinSpin wrote:
>> Pretty sad when consoles are becoming more "plug & play" than the PCs 
>> that originated the phrase.
>
> Nitpick: I'm pretty sure it was the Mac that invented "plug & play."

Well, true and false...  The Mac had "plug & play" capabilities for 
quite a while previously, but Microsoft is generally credited with 
coining the actual phrase as part of the sales pitch for Windows95.  
They wanted people to think it was a shiny new thing, came up with a 
quirky little catchy name for it, and made like they had invented the 
concept.  Kinda like they did with the whole windows concept...  It's 
all about the PR spin, you know.

CoinSpin
0
CoinSpin
9/13/2008 4:40:39 AM
CoinSpin wrote:
> Pretty sad when consoles are becoming more "plug & play" than the PCs 
> that originated the phrase.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Nitpick: I'm pretty sure it was the Mac that invented "plug & play."

CoinSpin  <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well, true and false...  The Mac had "plug & play" capabilities for 
>quite a while previously, but Microsoft is generally credited with 
>coining the actual phrase as part of the sales pitch for Windows95.  

Well, the phrase "plug and play" predates both.  I had an Okidata ML92
printer from 1983 that supported a "Plug 'N Play" option.  It made it
emulate an IBM printer so in theory it could be used with an IBM computer
without requiring special Okidata drivers (for each of your applications).
I recall at the time that phrase wasn't unique to Okidata, and was sort
of a buzz word.

Note that early Macintoshes didn't support any sort of plug and play
functionality.  Plug and play refers to the ability to plug in some
sort of device into a computer and just have it work.  Early Macs didn't
support pluging in much of anything.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  
0
Ross
9/13/2008 6:51:37 PM
In article 
<94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>
DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM

"Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
http://atu.ca/675



0
DC
9/14/2008 3:49:00 PM
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
<nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

>"Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>http://atu.ca/675

Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
are on a moral crusade.

No wonder PC gaming is dying.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
0
Andrew
9/14/2008 4:39:26 PM
Andrew wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>> http://atu.ca/675
> 
> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
> are on a moral crusade.
> 
> No wonder PC gaming is dying.


Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play it 
but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that people 
that might normally have bought the game, that might normally be averse 
to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up that they're 
looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be interested to see an 
independent study of that.
0
Shawk
9/14/2008 4:50:51 PM
Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> writes:

> Andrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>>> http://atu.ca/675
>>
>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>> are on a moral crusade.
>>
>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>
>
> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play
> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that
> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally
> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up
> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?

None. They *claim* thats why they download. But in reality they know
full well that in the "vogue" period they would never install it 5 times
anyway. Like all DRM like this they know it will be cracked or opened up
later.

They are thieving scum. Nothing more, nothing less.


> I'd certainly be
> interested to see an independent study of that.

-- 
0
Walter
9/14/2008 4:51:54 PM
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:50:51 +0100, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
wrote:

>Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play it 
>but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that people 
>that might normally have bought the game, that might normally be averse 
>to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up that they're 
>looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be interested to see an 
>independent study of that.

If people want to protest, don't buy the game, and email the
publishers telling them why. Publishers have no way of knowing which
of the millions of warezed copies are just the usual thieves or those
"making a stand" (no difference in my mind) so therefore no useful
message is sent.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
0
Andrew
9/14/2008 5:05:37 PM
Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> writes:

> Note that early Macintoshes didn't support any sort of plug and play
> functionality.  Plug and play refers to the ability to plug in some
> sort of device into a computer and just have it work.  Early Macs didn't
> support pluging in much of anything.

My first memory of plug and play is someone trying to detach an extra
battery from a laptop and put in a CD drive, in a modular bay or
whatever it was called back then. Laptop was running Windows 1995 and
the guy gushed about how cool plug and play is. The machine crashed of
course...

I seem to also remember the iMacs did popularize USB in the late
1990s, with the first iMac which came out in 1998. So that would be
the start of plug and play on the Macs.
0
Anssi
9/14/2008 5:22:00 PM
Shawk wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - http://atu.ca/675
>>
>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>> are on a moral crusade.
>>
>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
> 
> 
> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play it 
> but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that people 
> that might normally have bought the game, that might normally be averse 
> to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up that they're 
> looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be interested to see an 
> independent study of that.

Unfortunately the whole article has the air of trying to justify why 
someone is right to pirate a game ... to me it's just a really weird 
sense of logic that can come to this conclusion.
0
JAB
9/14/2008 5:45:26 PM
On Sep 8, 11:05=A0am, DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> 1Up.comhttp://atu.ca/647
>
> If you take a look atSpore'slisting on Amazon.comhttp://atu.ca/SPOREyou m=
ay be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
> ..Spore'sDRM limits owners to only three activations of
> the game after installation. The point is to prohibit
> software pirates from sharing and reusing activation codes
> over and over, but it also means that if a user happens to
> uninstall and reinstallSporemore than three times for
> completely legitimate reasons, they'll have to contact
> Electronic Arts customer support to request and have
> approved a new authentication on a case-by-case basis.
> Which is precisely what has Amazon users up in arms.
>
> A quick scan of the negative reviews reveals some bitterly
> sensationalistic headlines: "DRM Kills another potentially
> great game," "Not a chance until the DRM goes," and "DRM
> complicates life, removes value." One reviewer, who calls
> the DRM "draconian," even likened a purchase to a rental as
> opposed to an actual ownership of the game, since a player
> could theoretically be barred from playing their copy ofSporeif they use =
up their activations and EA refuses to
> allow more. "What you will be left with is a nice, colorful
> $50 coaster. And you will be required to pay for another
> copy/license if you want to continue playing," the user
> writes.
>
> And believe it or not, this backlash comes after EA and
> Maxis madeSpore'sDRM less stringent, when fans decried
> the originally announced plan to require online
> authentication every 10 days. As for how much the Amazon
> debacle will affect sales of the game remains uncertain,
> but it's probably a PR problem that EA and Maxis could have
> happily lived without.


same at Best buy, sunday the 15th of september, only a thee star
rating out of maybe six or seven stars and most people had terrible
experiences with this.

I feel that the most "intelligent" user reviews tend to be on amazon!!

freestone

0
freestonew
9/14/2008 6:24:28 PM
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:39:26 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
><nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
>>"Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>>http://atu.ca/675
>
>Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>are on a moral crusade.
>
>No wonder PC gaming is dying.

No.  Get too offensive about the DRM and people will pirate rather
than put up with it.

Spore isn't going to do nearly as well as they expected because it's
simply not up to the hype.  They will of course blame piracy but
that's not the real cause.
0
Loren
9/14/2008 7:27:19 PM
JAB wrote:
> Shawk wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - http://atu.ca/675
>>>
>>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>>> are on a moral crusade.
>>>
>>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play 
>> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that 
>> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally 
>> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up 
>> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be 
>> interested to see an independent study of that.
> 
> Unfortunately the whole article has the air of trying to justify why 
> someone is right to pirate a game ... to me it's just a really weird 
> sense of logic that can come to this conclusion.


Its that kind of site though Jab - pro-sharing.

That's why I'd like to see an independent study - I think it'd be of 
interest to publishers and devs.  I'm sure that a number of people who 
read the outcry on Amazon and other sites but were looking forward to 
the game may well have though I wonder how hard bit-torrent actually is 
to use?

Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like 
a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm 
sure he's right for a percentage of people.  Andrew has a good, common 
sense point but I'm not sure that 'if' normal non-thieving bastards 
suddenly decide to d-load Azureus of UTorrent because they've had enough 
of DRM whether they are bothered about sending a message or just want to 
play.

This game is the wrong one for such a study anyway by the sound of it. 
Even without DRM it hasn't turned out to be much of a game and I'm not 
sure 'any' of those million d-loaders would have paid for it...

0
Shawk
9/14/2008 7:37:22 PM
Shawk wrote:
> JAB wrote:
>> Shawk wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>>>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - http://atu.ca/675
>>>>
>>>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>>>> are on a moral crusade.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play 
>>> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that 
>>> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally 
>>> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up 
>>> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be 
>>> interested to see an independent study of that.
>>
>> Unfortunately the whole article has the air of trying to justify why 
>> someone is right to pirate a game ... to me it's just a really weird 
>> sense of logic that can come to this conclusion.
> 
> 
> Its that kind of site though Jab - pro-sharing.
> 
> That's why I'd like to see an independent study - I think it'd be of 
> interest to publishers and devs.  I'm sure that a number of people who 
> read the outcry on Amazon and other sites but were looking forward to 
> the game may well have though I wonder how hard bit-torrent actually is 
> to use?
> 
> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like 
> a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm 
> sure he's right for a percentage of people.  Andrew has a good, common 
> sense point but I'm not sure that 'if' normal non-thieving bastards 
> suddenly decide to d-load Azureus of UTorrent because they've had enough 
> of DRM whether they are bothered about sending a message or just want to 
> play.
> 
> This game is the wrong one for such a study anyway by the sound of it. 
> Even without DRM it hasn't turned out to be much of a game and I'm not 
> sure 'any' of those million d-loaders would have paid for it...
> 

Like all these things trying to work out the real figures is going to be 
difficult as a simple example I'm one of those d/l but I also bought the 
game - Amazon's predicted delivery time was way to long! Saying that I 
can see there being people that because of the hype surrounding the DRM 
then justified pirating the game because of that or even didn't realise 
that sites like pirate bay even existed. In the end the sales figures 
that will really count.

Oh and as a game I really like it if you can get past the it's more a 
pastime than a normal game IMHO. I liken it to something that's easy 
just to spend the odd hour here and there just playing around with. I 
love STALKER but it's nice to have something "fun" to play occasionally.

0
JAB
9/14/2008 8:35:29 PM
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:27:19 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Loren Pechtel
wrote: 

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:39:26 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>><nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>>>http://atu.ca/675
>>
>>Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>>are on a moral crusade.
>>
>>No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>
>No.  Get too offensive about the DRM and people will pirate rather
>than put up with it.
>
Case in point:

In the 80's, I bought M.U.L.E., Archon, Seven Cities, and Heart of Africa for
the C=64. You'd wait 3 or so minutes while the famously offensive, anti-copy
_EOA_ loading screen just sat their and changed the color of their logo, one
stripe at a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electronic_Arts_historical_logo.svg

was all you saw for about 3 minutes.

I bought Epyx Fastload. No help. I'm pretty sure EA's loader loaded custom
firmware into the 1541 drive. You could do that with a 1541 because the
hardware was very flexible (and notoriously slow with its default firmware). I
also used to use EA's loader as a test when I was realigning the heads, too,
because if you weren't in *perfect* alignment, EA games would _not_ load.

*Everything else* would read just fine, but EA disks would choke.

Eventually, I found a pirate authored "load and dump" program that would
capture the data the EA loader grabbed, and then dump it to a normal file.

With Fastload, those games went from taking 3 minutes of corporate advertising
on load to 5 seconds. 5 seconds! I used to get up and make a sandwich while EA
games loaded, no more!

That's just my personal story. I cracked every EA game I bought. I bought every
EA game I played. They were one of the best companies out there at the time.

EA has a *long* history of putting DRM before customer satisfaction, but at
least they *used* to care about quality. That was how they got away with it in
the 80's.

-- 
Zag

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ...Ben Franklin
0
Zaghadka
9/14/2008 8:53:22 PM
CoinSpin wrote:
> Nostromo wrote:
>> Kidding. Let's talk some more about the DRM shit. <EG>
>>
>> Hey, 2000 (92%) of Amazon buyers can't be wrong, can they? :)
>>
>> See kids, piracy is bad...hang on, or is it anti-piracy? <scratched 
>> head> Or is it 
>> anti-copyright-revolutionary-anti-best-practices-anti-cartel-mafiaa-tactics 
>> that's brought this on...? <confused> :-/
>>
> 
> I thought it was "drugs are bad" and "piracy is good - as long as you 
> are Johnny Depp" or something along those lines.
> 
> May have gotten my signals crossed, though...
> 
> CoinSpin

I think if you're Johnny Depp it's pretty much all good.

-joe.
0
Joe
9/14/2008 9:23:46 PM
Shawk wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" -
>>> http://atu.ca/675
>>
>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>> are on a moral crusade.
>>
>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>
>
> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play
> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that
> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally
> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up
> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be
> interested to see an independent study of that.

I've never pirated a game or downloaded a cracked version but there have 
been several that I would have bought if not for the DRM or other malware 
that would have had to be installed with them.

-- 
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08 


0
Dimensional
9/14/2008 10:04:39 PM
Shawk wrote:
> JAB wrote:
>> Shawk wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>>>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - http://atu.ca/675
>>>>
>>>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>>>> are on a moral crusade.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play 
>>> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that 
>>> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally 
>>> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up 
>>> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be 
>>> interested to see an independent study of that.
>>
>> Unfortunately the whole article has the air of trying to justify why 
>> someone is right to pirate a game ... to me it's just a really weird 
>> sense of logic that can come to this conclusion.
> 
> 
> Its that kind of site though Jab - pro-sharing.
> 
> That's why I'd like to see an independent study - I think it'd be of 
> interest to publishers and devs.  I'm sure that a number of people who 
> read the outcry on Amazon and other sites but were looking forward to 
> the game may well have though I wonder how hard bit-torrent actually is 
> to use?
> 
> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like 
> a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm 
> sure he's right for a percentage of people.  Andrew has a good, common 
> sense point but I'm not sure that 'if' normal non-thieving bastards 
> suddenly decide to d-load Azureus of UTorrent because they've had enough 
> of DRM whether they are bothered about sending a message or just want to 
> play.
> 
> This game is the wrong one for such a study anyway by the sound of it. 
> Even without DRM it hasn't turned out to be much of a game and I'm not 
> sure 'any' of those million d-loaders would have paid for it...

I'm doing my bit by not even d/ling this POS kiddie Sims clone. :)

Btw, Mitty is *never* right. It's like e=mc^2 or the changing of the 
tides or any verified mathematical axiom you care to pick. I wish dumb 
bookies gave odds on it so I could make some easy money.

-- 
Nostromo
0
Nostromo
9/14/2008 11:51:48 PM
Zaghadka wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:27:19 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Loren Pechtel
> wrote: 
> 
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:39:26 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>>>> http://atu.ca/675
>>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>>> are on a moral crusade.
>>>
>>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>> No.  Get too offensive about the DRM and people will pirate rather
>> than put up with it.
>>
> Case in point:
> 
> In the 80's, I bought M.U.L.E., Archon, Seven Cities, and Heart of Africa for
> the C=64. You'd wait 3 or so minutes while the famously offensive, anti-copy
> _EOA_ loading screen just sat their and changed the color of their logo, one
> stripe at a time.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electronic_Arts_historical_logo.svg
> 
> was all you saw for about 3 minutes.
> 
> I bought Epyx Fastload. No help. I'm pretty sure EA's loader loaded custom
> firmware into the 1541 drive. You could do that with a 1541 because the
> hardware was very flexible (and notoriously slow with its default firmware). I
> also used to use EA's loader as a test when I was realigning the heads, too,
> because if you weren't in *perfect* alignment, EA games would _not_ load.
> 
> *Everything else* would read just fine, but EA disks would choke.
> 
> Eventually, I found a pirate authored "load and dump" program that would
> capture the data the EA loader grabbed, and then dump it to a normal file.
> 
> With Fastload, those games went from taking 3 minutes of corporate advertising
> on load to 5 seconds. 5 seconds! I used to get up and make a sandwich while EA
> games loaded, no more!
> 
> That's just my personal story. I cracked every EA game I bought. I bought every
> EA game I played. They were one of the best companies out there at the time.
> 
> EA has a *long* history of putting DRM before customer satisfaction, but at
> least they *used* to care about quality. That was how they got away with it in
> the 80's.

Here endeth the lesson...(we can only hope ;)


-- 
Nostromo
0
Nostromo
9/15/2008 12:22:58 AM
Joe Mama wrote:
> CoinSpin wrote:
>> Nostromo wrote:
>>> Kidding. Let's talk some more about the DRM shit. <EG>
>>>
>>> Hey, 2000 (92%) of Amazon buyers can't be wrong, can they? :)
>>>
>>> See kids, piracy is bad...hang on, or is it anti-piracy? <scratched 
>>> head> Or is it 
>>> anti-copyright-revolutionary-anti-best-practices-anti-cartel-mafiaa-tactics 
>>> that's brought this on...? <confused> :-/
>>>
>>
>> I thought it was "drugs are bad" and "piracy is good - as long as you 
>> are Johnny Depp" or something along those lines.
>>
>> May have gotten my signals crossed, though...
>>
>> CoinSpin
> 
> I think if you're Johnny Depp it's pretty much all good.

"Oh. Hiya kids. Here is an important message from your Uncle Bill. Don't 
buy drugs..... Become a pop star, and they give you them for free!"

-- 
Nostromo
0
Nostromo
9/15/2008 12:24:19 AM
Anssi Saari wrote:
> I seem to also remember the iMacs did popularize USB in the late
> 1990s, with the first iMac which came out in 1998. So that would be
> the start of plug and play on the Macs.

I seem to recall plug-and-play far preceding the iMac, but sometimes my 
recall isn't worth much.
0
David
9/16/2008 11:56:39 PM
Shawk wrote:
> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like 
> a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm 
> sure he's right for a percentage of people.

"Criminal" is a pretty loaded word.  Laws have a wide range of 
seriousness, and there's lots of evidence that many (maybe most) people 
don't consider some of them (say, speeding laws, or jaywalking laws) to 
be so serious as to be worth obeying if it's inconvenient to do so.

It has long been clear, since at least the days of cheap photocopying 
and cheap audio cassettes, that a large fraction of the public has 
trouble taking copyright seriously.  I can easily imagine people who 
never bothered to figure out how to pirate anything suddenly getting 
pissed off enough about laws they barely respect in the first place to 
start downloading, just because of DRM.

I am not trying to justify breaking any such laws.  While the Pirate Bay 
article may well have been trying to do so, I think many newly-minted 
pirates might just be saying to themselves "f**k it, that rule is just 
as silly as a 100km/hr speed limit on the 401".  They might think of 
their one download as pretty much equivalent to driving 105km/hr instead 
of 100.

0
David
9/17/2008 12:15:31 AM
David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Shawk wrote:
>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving 
>> like a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals 
>> and I'm sure he's right for a percentage of people.
> 
> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word.  Laws have a wide range of 
> seriousness, and there's lots of evidence that many (maybe most) people 
> don't consider some of them (say, speeding laws, or jaywalking laws) to 
> be so serious as to be worth obeying if it's inconvenient to do so.
> 
> It has long been clear, since at least the days of cheap photocopying 
> and cheap audio cassettes, that a large fraction of the public has 
> trouble taking copyright seriously.  I can easily imagine people who 
> never bothered to figure out how to pirate anything suddenly getting 
> pissed off enough about laws they barely respect in the first place to 
> start downloading, just because of DRM.
> 
> I am not trying to justify breaking any such laws.  While the Pirate Bay 
> article may well have been trying to do so, I think many newly-minted 
> pirates might just be saying to themselves "f**k it, that rule is just 
> as silly as a 100km/hr speed limit on the 401".  They might think of 
> their one download as pretty much equivalent to driving 105km/hr instead 
> of 100.


That was my point David.


0
Shawk
9/17/2008 7:48:02 AM
"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
> Shawk wrote:
>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like a 
>> criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm sure 
>> he's right for a percentage of people.
>
> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word.  Laws have a wide range of 
> seriousness, and there's lots of evidence that many (maybe most) people 
> don't consider some of them (say, speeding laws, or jaywalking laws) to be 
> so serious as to be worth obeying if it's inconvenient to do so.
>
> It has long been clear, since at least the days of cheap photocopying and 
> cheap audio cassettes, that a large fraction of the public has trouble 
> taking copyright seriously.  I can easily imagine people who never 
> bothered to figure out how to pirate anything suddenly getting pissed off 
> enough about laws they barely respect in the first place to start 
> downloading, just because of DRM.
>
> I am not trying to justify breaking any such laws.  While the Pirate Bay 
> article may well have been trying to do so, I think many newly-minted 
> pirates might just be saying to themselves "f**k it, that rule is just as 
> silly as a 100km/hr speed limit on the 401".  They might think of their 
> one download as pretty much equivalent to driving 105km/hr instead of 100.

I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to 
say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've 
ever seen.

Thanks David.

CC 

0
Magnate
9/17/2008 11:42:22 AM
"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
> Shawk wrote:
>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like a
>> criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm sure
>> he's right for a percentage of people.
>
> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word.  Laws have a wide range of
> seriousness, and there's lots of evidence that many (maybe most) people
> don't consider some of them (say, speeding laws, or jaywalking laws) to be
> so serious as to be worth obeying if it's inconvenient to do so.
>
> It has long been clear, since at least the days of cheap photocopying and
> cheap audio cassettes, that a large fraction of the public has trouble
> taking copyright seriously.  I can easily imagine people who never
> bothered to figure out how to pirate anything suddenly getting pissed off
> enough about laws they barely respect in the first place to start
> downloading, just because of DRM.
>
> I am not trying to justify breaking any such laws.  While the Pirate Bay
> article may well have been trying to do so, I think many newly-minted
> pirates might just be saying to themselves "f**k it, that rule is just as
> silly as a 100km/hr speed limit on the 401".  They might think of their
> one download as pretty much equivalent to driving 105km/hr instead of 100.

I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to
say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've
ever seen.

Thanks David.

CC

0
Magnate
9/17/2008 11:42:37 AM
Shawk wrote:
> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> Shawk wrote:
>>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving 
>>> like a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals 
>>> and I'm sure he's right for a percentage of people.
>>
>> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word. 
> 
> That was my point David.

I think what was going on is that I was objecting to what Walt said and 
supporting what you said in (I think) a suitably different way to be 
worth saying.
0
David
9/17/2008 7:24:44 PM
David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Shawk wrote:
>> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>>> Shawk wrote:
>>>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving 
>>>> like a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals 
>>>> and I'm sure he's right for a percentage of people.
>>>
>>> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word. 
>>
>> That was my point David.
> 
> I think what was going on is that I was objecting to what Walt said and 
> supporting what you said in (I think) a suitably different way to be 
> worth saying.


....and saying it much better (I've applied to your fan club)  ;-)

0
Shawk
9/17/2008 7:27:20 PM
Magnate wrote:
> I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to 
> say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've 
> ever seen.

I guess it's an application of the basic idea that an officer should 
never issue an order he knows won't be obeyed, and a legislature should 
be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.
0
David
9/17/2008 7:27:35 PM
David Alex Lamb wrote:
> ... a legislature should 
> be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.

Should have finished with: Because that increases disrespect for the law 
in general.
0
David
9/17/2008 7:37:55 PM
"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> ... a legislature should be wary about passing laws they know are going 
>> to be largely ignored.
>
> Should have finished with: Because that increases disrespect for the law 
> in general.

Agreed again. When are you running for president?

(Just finished season six of the West Wing - suddenly US politics is 
interesting!)

CC 

0
Magnate
9/18/2008 12:03:43 PM
Magnate wrote:
> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
> Agreed again. When are you running for president?

Ineligible: Canadian.
0
David
9/18/2008 8:57:15 PM
David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Magnate wrote:
>> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
>> Agreed again. When are you running for president?
> 
> Ineligible: Canadian.


Even better... no-one in the World really hates you

0
Shawk
9/18/2008 9:18:17 PM
In article 
<94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>
DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> 1Up.com
>
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM

ZDNet - "Spore DRM could kill PC gaming" 
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2617



0
DC
9/18/2008 9:45:31 PM
Shawk wrote:
> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> Magnate wrote:
>>> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
>>> Agreed again. When are you running for president?
>>
>> Ineligible: Canadian.
> 
> Even better... no-one in the World really hates you
> 

Bin Laden put us on his List a year or two ago.
0
David
9/19/2008 5:35:08 AM
On the 17 Sep 2008, David Alex Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

> Anssi Saari wrote:
>> I seem to also remember the iMacs did popularize USB in the late
>> 1990s, with the first iMac which came out in 1998. So that would be
>> the start of plug and play on the Macs.

> I seem to recall plug-and-play far preceding the iMac, but sometimes my
> recall isn't worth much.

It wasn't called plug-and-play, but a lot of stuff for the BBC micro 
and its successors would work straight away. This was because the 
drivers etc were in ROMs on the card or peripheral. The Beeb had 
massive expandability.

-- 
Graham Thurlwell.
Jades' First Encounters Site.
http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
0
Graham
9/19/2008 5:24:53 PM
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:27:35 -0400, David Alex Lamb
<dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

>Magnate wrote:
>> I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to 
>> say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've 
>> ever seen.
>
>I guess it's an application of the basic idea that an officer should 
>never issue an order he knows won't be obeyed, and a legislature should 
>be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.

Agreed.  DRM just encourages hostility towards the game makers and
thus encourages piracy.
0
Loren
9/20/2008 11:38:51 PM
Thus spake "Magnate" <not@receiving.here>, Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:03:43 +0100,
Anno Domini:

>"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
>> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>>> ... a legislature should be wary about passing laws they know are going 
>>> to be largely ignored.
>>
>> Should have finished with: Because that increases disrespect for the law 
>> in general.
>
>Agreed again. When are you running for president?
>
>(Just finished season six of the West Wing - suddenly US politics is 
>interesting!)
>
>CC 

Hey dude, I replied to your last email msg, but they bounced both times:

----
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

     <yourmailbox>@terminalarrogance.com

Technical details of permanent failure: 
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient
domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further
information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server
returned was: 550 550 Sender not on whitelist - please contact via
www.terminalarrogance.com (state 14).
----

(it was just a 1-liner saying 'no probs', but just thought I should let you
know ;)

-- 
Nostromo
0
Nostromo
9/21/2008 12:07:32 AM
"Nostromo" <nospam@forme.org> wrote
>
> Hey dude, I replied to your last email msg, but they bounced both times:
>
> ----
> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
>
>     <yourmailbox>@terminalarrogance.com
>
> Technical details of permanent failure:
> Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient
> domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further
> information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server
> returned was: 550 550 Sender not on whitelist - please contact via
> www.terminalarrogance.com (state 14).
> ----
>
> (it was just a 1-liner saying 'no probs', but just thought I should let 
> you
> know ;)

Thanks - sorry about that! I thought you were already on the whitelist, but 
for some reason you weren't. All corrected now.

CC 

0
Magnate
9/22/2008 10:13:03 AM
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:38:51 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:27:35 -0400, David Alex Lamb
><dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
>>Magnate wrote:
>>> I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to 
>>> say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've 
>>> ever seen.
>>
>>I guess it's an application of the basic idea that an officer should 
>>never issue an order he knows won't be obeyed, and a legislature should 
>>be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.
>
>Agreed.  DRM just encourages hostility towards the game makers and
>thus encourages piracy.



Yes from what I have read is that SPORE is now the most pirated Game out.


Plus the other problem the DRM   would not be Valid here in NZ, I often have
to reinstall XP a few times, I play with stacks of software and some Beta's,
our Retail laws stated that it must be fit for the purpose it was made for so
restricting the reinstalls to 5 as I think it would be illegal here.


0
Brian
12/29/2008 10:55:49 PM

"Brian Adams" <ba@none.cnn> wrote in message 
news:o8lil4p391pppnch23pionq22faksl00jd@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:38:51 -0700, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:27:35 -0400, David Alex Lamb
>><dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Magnate wrote:
>>>> I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just 
>>>> have to
>>>> say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that 
>>>> I've
>>>> ever seen.
>>>
>>>I guess it's an application of the basic idea that an officer should
>>>never issue an order he knows won't be obeyed, and a legislature should
>>>be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.
>>
>>Agreed.  DRM just encourages hostility towards the game makers and
>>thus encourages piracy.
>
>
>
> Yes from what I have read is that SPORE is now the most pirated Game out.
>
>
> Plus the other problem the DRM   would not be Valid here in NZ, I often 
> have
> to reinstall XP a few times, I play with stacks of software and some 
> Beta's,
> our Retail laws stated that it must be fit for the purpose it was made for 
> so
> restricting the reinstalls to 5 as I think it would be illegal here.
>
>

that's old news... 

0
MindFever
12/30/2008 2:18:57 PM
Reply: