EA does it again!

[Hurlshort]

I really don't need to own a game. I play the game, and then I'm done with the game.

 

Well, that's great for you, but, personally, I like revisiting old games.

 

I like to revisit games too. That's why I've really enjoyed my subscription to Gametap. For $10 a month I can go back and play a lot of older games, and they are easy to run on the Gametap player.

 

Modding is definitely an issue, but MMO's allow certain mods, like custom UI and mapping utilities. So I imagine modding games under this subscription type model would be possible.

[Moatilliatta]

Have you guys seen this?

 

EA has put themselves in reverse and stopped banning people.

 

Also someone tries to sue EA over Securom. Probably won't go anywhere.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Hopefully those who are suing EA wins.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Hopefully those who are suing EA wins.

 

I see your "Wishful thinking" skill is maxed out.

[Moatilliatta]

For those with a tl;dr mindset here are the key points:

"Although consumers are told the game uses access control and copy protection technology, consumers are not told that this technology is actually an entirely separate, stand-alone program which will download, install, and operate on their computer," read the complaint. "Once installed, it becomes a permanent part of the consumer's software portfolio. Even if the consumer uninstalls Spore, and entirely deletes it from their computer, SecurROM remains a fixture on their computer unless and until the consumer completely wipes their hard drive through reformatting or replacement of the drive."

and

The suit accuses EA of "intentionally" hiding the fact Spore uses SecurROM, which it alleges is "secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel) and [is] surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation of the computer, and preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and/or disrupting hardware operations." The suit also claims the SecurROM takes over a portion of the PC's processing resources "to transmit information back to EA."

and

The filing asks the judge to certify the action as a class action, and award anyone in it damages equal to the purchase price of Spore and "actual damages, statutory damages, or treble damages." Given Spore's success, paying back thrice its $49.99 price tag could prove costly for EA, which had not responded to requests for comment as of press time.

[Sand]

Hopefully those who are suing EA wins.

 

I see your "Wishful thinking" skill is maxed out.

 

My "Wishful Thinking" goes to 11, but yours never will.

[Dark_Raven]

Uh. EA develops games. It's called EA Sports. Some of the best games ever created.

 

 

 

"Customers give publishers money which the publishers use to make games you like. Customers indirectly give you games that you want to play."

 

L0L With that logic, my parents give me games I want to play even thoguh they haven't bought a game for me since I was a kid because without them I wouldn't even be born hence I wouldn't be able to play games.

 

 

 

"Atari and EA make games you like to play? Really?

 

Here I thought it was developers like Bioware and Obsidian that made games you liked to play. All Atari and EA seem to be doing is gumming up the works of happy customers getting happy games from happy developers."

 

First off, EA is a developer and publisher. And, Atari does make games people want to play. Whetehr you like it or not, Atari had a hand in NWN2. As well as other games they publish. Developers don't create games in a funnel. Sorry. No Atari, no MOTB. Period.

 

 

 

"Yep Atari and EA are only screwing the developers by pissing off the customers. Way to go!"

 

Atari is struggling; but EA is most likely the most successful game company in the world. If 'pissing off customers' mean publishing/developing games those customers want than they're the kings. The Sims, Madden (and, to a lesser degree their other sports games) have been pleaisng games for over a decade now, and a bunch of other successful games.

 

EA knows want the gamers want, and deliver it time, and time again.

 

You shouldn't speak for other gamers. The millions of copies that EA games sell speak enough about how customers feel about EA - they make games people want to play.

 

R00fles!

 

*Fap, fap, fap, fap!*

 

Yes we all know you get a hard on when ever EA is mentioned. You must be a customer rep for that company or some other employee the way you show your fanboyism towards them.

[Hurlshort]

So with EA reversing many of the decisions that people are complaining about, are any of you anti-EA people going to get off the negative train? Or is it a situation where, hey, I've already boarded the train, I might as well ride it to the end.

[Dark_Raven]

Have you guys seen this?

 

EA has put themselves in reverse and stopped banning people.

 

Also someone tries to sue EA over Securom. Probably won't go anywhere.

They're still a bunch of monkey spankers. O NOES you are so banorized for question us for using Securom.

[Moatilliatta]

So with EA reversing many of the decisions that people are complaining about, are any of you anti-EA people going to get off the negative train? Or is it a situation where, hey, I've already boarded the train, I might as well ride it to the end.

Reasonable people probably will when they reverse more important decisions in regards to Securom. Don't expect much before that.

[Volourn]

"So with EA reversing many of the decisions that people are complaining about, are any of you anti-EA people going to get off the negative train? Or is it a situation where, hey, I've already boarded the train, I might as well ride it to the end."

 

Nah. EA is sucessful. People tend to hate successful people, and pray that they crash and burn. Pure jealousy that they can only play games not make games.

 

 

 

"Yes we all know you get a hard on when ever EA is mentioned. You must be a customer rep for that company or some other employee the way you show your fanboyism towards them."

 

What's funny about this comment is that i was about to post that EA is wrong in how they have put the copy protection in, and forced it to remain on your compueter even after you uninstall it. They should be made to get rid of that in a patch, and fully refund those who bought the game. Dunno about the lawsuit as it sounds EXTREME! for such a relatively small issue. *shrug*

Again, i defend EA because EA that makes games I want to play > Scumbag Fans who do nothing for me.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Volourn

[Magister Lajciak]

Speculative post:

 

Found this interesting interview with John Riccitiello, the CEO of EA. I think it sheds some light on EA's mindset somewhat possibly explains why they are progressively moving towards stricter and stricter restrictions on the ways in which they want customers to experience their content. Here's the interesting bit from the interview:

 

There is a longer-term transition from a disk-based model for retail sales to an

[Killian Kalthorne]

"So with EA reversing many of the decisions that people are complaining about, are any of you anti-EA people going to get off the negative train? Or is it a situation where, hey, I've already boarded the train, I might as well ride it to the end."

 

Nah. EA is sucessful. People tend to hate successful people, and pray that they crash and burn. Pure jealousy that they can only play games not make games.

 

 

 

"Yes we all know you get a hard on when ever EA is mentioned. You must be a customer rep for that company or some other employee the way you show your fanboyism towards them."

 

What's funny about this comment is that i was about to post that EA is wrong in how they have put the copy protection in, and forced it to remain on your compueter even after you uninstall it. They should be made to get rid of that in a patch, and fully refund those who bought the game. Dunno about the lawsuit as it sounds EXTREME! for such a relatively small issue. *shrug*

Again, i defend EA because EA that makes games I want to play > Scumbag Fans who do nothing for me.

I don't hate EA. I just hate DRM.

[Magister Lajciak]

So with EA reversing many of the decisions that people are complaining about, are any of you anti-EA people going to get off the negative train? Or is it a situation where, hey, I've already boarded the train, I might as well ride it to the end.

 

I want to be able to play a game 10-15 years from now for nostalgia's sake and thus want to be independent of the need for EA's authentication (which EA might not be there to provide at that point) to do so and regardless of the number of systems I go through during this time (including system upgrades, OS changes, etcetera). When they reverse their DRM decisions to the point that this will be the case, I will definitely get off the negative train and even praise them for learning from their mistakes.

 

I recognize the need for some form of DRM in order to prevent casual piracy (it won't stop the 'profesional' pirates [no DRM will], but it might hamper casual piracy). As a result, I have no problem with CD-checks (never had a problem with that).

 

An additional idea has, in fact, occurred to me for reconciling my desire for game longevity and for EA's desire for controlling casual piracy through DRM. I would accept something akin to a time-limited DRM. Take, for example, the requirement for online authentication. In case of time-limited DRM, this means that the game needs to be authenticated online after every install for say 5 years after its official release. After the 5 years expires, online authentication is no longer needed to install and/or play the game. The same could apply to limited installs. The installs would be limited to X (probably 3, 4 or 5 with the possibility of getting additional installs authorized by EA customer service), but just like for online authentication, this limitation would only apply for Y years (for example for 5 years) after which point installs would become unlimited. I think this would be a reasonable compromise - most companies don't derive much more benefit from games after 5-years (or whatever time-period would be set), but a some of us gamers, want to play our old games even after decades, to refresh the spirit they evoked for us many years back.

 

If EA would switch to something like my idea above, I would be placated, as for me rental/longevity is the main issue at stake in the DRM debate. Of course, this depends on the existence of some tamper-proof (or relatively so) internal computer clock to function, which could be checked by the installation program to see whether the DRM in question should expire or not. I don't know whether such a clock is present in computers today - somebody better versed in computing could perhaps enlighten us. I would not accept this being dependent on some EA clock over the internet or something along those lines, because this would bring us back to square one (what if EA goes bankrupt and thus the clock disappears, etcetera, etcetera).

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So with EA reversing many of the decisions that people are complaining about, are any of you anti-EA people going to get off the negative train?

 

Nope, still too much DRM for my tastes.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Yeah, might as well keep the hate going until they go bankrupt.

[neckthrough]

So with EA reversing many of the decisions that people are complaining about, are any of you anti-EA people going to get off the negative train? Or is it a situation where, hey, I've already boarded the train, I might as well ride it to the end.

I'm happy EA is re-thinking some of its decisions. But I agree with Deadly that the existing DRM is still way too intrusive. I do think there'll be plenty of people for whom these steps would be enough to stop protesting and start playing EA games again. Good for them -- they protested about what they felt was wrong and managed to change things.

 

For me, EA needs to go one step further. SecuROM must go away. I'd like them to go back to CD-based checks or switch to Steam (I don't know if this is what you meant by riding the trail till the end). I really do want to play Red Alert 3.

 

Nah. EA is sucessful. People tend to hate successful people, and pray that they crash and burn. Pure jealousy that they can only play games not make games.

:lol:

[Magister Lajciak]

Any thoughts about my expirable DRM idea?

 

An idea has occurred to me for reconciling my desire for game longevity and for EA's desire for controlling casual piracy through DRM. I would accept something akin to a time-limited DRM. Take, for example, the requirement for online authentication. In case of time-limited DRM, this means that the game needs to be authenticated online after every install for say 5 years after its official release. After the 5 years expires, online authentication is no longer needed to install and/or play the game. The same could apply to limited installs. The installs would be limited to X (probably 3, 4 or 5 with the possibility of getting additional installs authorized by EA customer service), but just like for online authentication, this limitation would only apply for Y years (for example for 5 years) after which point installs would become unlimited. I think this would be a reasonable compromise - most companies don't derive much more benefit from games after 5-years (or whatever time-period would be set), but a some of us gamers, want to play our old games even after decades, to refresh the spirit they evoked for us many years back.

 

If EA would switch to something like my idea above, I would be placated, as for me rental/longevity is the main issue at stake in the DRM debate. Of course, this depends on the existence of some tamper-proof (or relatively so) internal computer clock to function, which could be checked by the installation program to see whether the DRM in question should expire or not. I don't know whether such a clock is present in computers today - somebody better versed in computing could perhaps enlighten us. I would not accept this being dependent on some EA clock over the internet or something along those lines, because this would bring us back to square one (what if EA goes bankrupt and thus the clock disappears, etcetera, etcetera).

[Gorgon]

How come it's ok for DR to throw out insults like console tards? Most folks on this forum would be put on moderated status if they constantly repeated the same drivel and insulted people who play consoles. Is it because DR was once a moderator?

Quit being such a sissy.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I think I have mellowed just a bit over the years.

[Nick_i_am]

Leave Magical Volo alone you jerk!

 

Seriously though, this place should be called Broken Record Forum Community lolololololololololol

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm closing this for being off-topic.

[Gorth]

This way