|
|
EA to face class action lawsuit over Spore DRM
Author: Joe MartinPublished: 26th September 2008
EA has drawn repeated criticism for the use of the SecuROM copy protection system.
The copy protection system used in Spore is one of many games lately using the SecuROM DRM system, with others including EA's Mass Effect and Take Two's BioShock on the PC. EA has also confirmed that it will be using the system in Red Alert 3.
Though Spore only allowed itself to be installed on three PCs and to be linked to a single account, EA has since pledged to loosen the restrictions. This hasn't proved to be enough to placate some gamers however who object to the extra software being present on the disc, or who have had issues with DRM solution.
Now though, according to Gamespot, plaintiffs are alleging that the DRM system used in Spore puts the game in breach of consumer law. The complaint, which has been filed at the class-action level, seeks damaged for trespass, interference and unfair competition.
The case also seeks disgorgement of unjust profits and claims that SecuROM is "secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel), and surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation on the computer, preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and/or disrupting hardware operations."
Electronic Arts has responded only that "We do not comment on matters of pending litigation."
If you still haven't checked out Spore then make sure you check out our full Spore review and analysis before heading to the forums and letting us know what you think of DRM.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (41)Stats: 0.075 seconds
It is understandable that EA want to protect their investment.
It is also unforgivable that SecuROM is presented in such a way that the only time it is actually a nuisance is to legitimate purchasers of the product it is included on.
Therefore I can understand why EA have used it, but find their execution of the system unforgivable and therefore do not wish to support it.
I agree that the box should say "uses SecuROM" or something like that, which I believe it does not.
EA made the game and can sell it with what ever they want, be that DRM, links to P0rn sites, offers for ridiculous loans what ever, as long as it says so on the box so that you can make your decision based on that.
At the end of the day it's a question of weighing your "desire" to play the game vs your aversion for DRM such as SecuROM.
I think we can all understand that companies like EA would like to somehow prevent their product which has costs them a lot of money to create to be easily copied, even if we all know that DRM like this gets cracked almost before the game is released.
either way, EA should learn a lesson (if they don't have their heads stuffed up their collective asses), and this will at the very least, bring attention to game developers that including draconian anti-piracy systems on any of their products is going to backfire on them and f- their sales figures up.
it would be funny to see a shelf at game stores labeled 'secuROM games' with a bunch of game boxes covered in dust and cob-webs.
And EA have already got your money... you can't return it open after all. I think is the main cause of the upset here. The EULA is only presented to you *after* you've bought that game. So if you reject it... what? You've just bought a shiny £30 drinks coaster. Even just saying on the box 'this product contains secuROM' doesn't help as again, it tells you nothing about what you are actually buying with that product.
The only way around this is to:
1) Somehow make the EULA available *before* the product is purchased
2) Accept full-money refunds for anyone who rejects the EULA after purchase of the product.
I mean really, think about this, it's absolutely ridiculous that with software like this you are presented with the terms of the license *after* you have bought the product! How does that make any kind of sense? Try and apply that bizarre logic to any other situation and see how you'd feel
If you don't' like the policy don't buy the game, but you have to be made aware first of the policy... which is what i would go after in this case..
I agree with you, making the EULA available before you buy a product would be a good way to go forward.
I guess what I'm aiming at is that I'm dead tired of people feeling that suing is the only way to solve a problem. I mean think about it.. lets say EA has to now pay out a couple mill $, where is that money coming from? Well either it will come out of the development budget for the next game EA is making or it will just be passed onto the price of the next game... who are we really hurting? You may argue that a couple of mill is nothing for a company the size of EA, but really what happened to dialog? Has the people now suing EA actually tried to start a dialog with EA before suing (I don't know), or have they just been screaming "we don't want DRM"?
You could probably get the companies to make each game's EULA available through their website so that you can read it before you buy the game, in reality probably no more 0.0001% of the people even thinking about buying the game would actually go read it though.
Seconded. Made the same point at /. and some guy responds by posting a link to some third-party site containing the EULA. Yeah, because the fact that it's visible SOMEWHERE prior to purchase (not even on the publisher's own site!) makes it OK. So I'm done with EA, and done with other companies that use similar tactics. If they want to use DRM, fine, but I'll do like everyone always says and vote with my wallet.
It's bad enough everyone had to invest in getting the rating system pasted all over products.
In all my years I'm proud to have never read one :D
but ... it's MY computer and I have a right to determine what goes on it .. if I have to pay money for something only to find that it has something I dont agree with AFTER the fact, I'm suposed to suck it up and take the loss???
.. and then try the same thing all over again with someone elses product ???
I give the EULA a quick scan just to make sure I'm not agreeing to anything nasty.
Yes and no. You do have the right to determine what goes on your PC. But the thing is some user agreements state that the game/software even though you bought it isn't yours and the company has the right to do what they want. They also sometimes state that they're not responsible for hardware damage etc etc.
ex. Blizzard has all the rights to my copy and wow account. Based on the user agreement they have the right to terminate my account and I don't get a refund. I can't even sell my copy to someone because it violates the user agreement. Which in turn violates the wonderful legal system.
Real life ex. I paid for my drivers license but the state has the right to take it away from me because in their agreement it states that my license is state property.
Anyways the whole anti-piracy war is just a waste of money. Spore was cracked in a few days by the pirate community and now millions of dollars are going to be wasted in court over something that wasn't even worth it.
I actually did - few times. But it was just for one purpose - what rights I had when I bought game 10 years ago and what rights I have now when I buy game. 10 years ago - you were forbidden to decompile, modify software...and so on...but: you owned the right to use the software and you were even allowed to make backup copies!!! Now - you're forbidden to make backup copies(and if your disc(s) gets damaged you'll have to pay undisclosed price for new one), you don't own game - it's rent to you.
Some week ago, chrisuk wrote:
"And no, you don't have any right to put it on more than one machine......all that has changed is that the technologies now exist to enforce what has been in EULAs for a long long long time."
I think it's exactly the opposite - They're changing EULA because they (think they) have technology to enforce it.
---
But I must say I feel very pitty for developers(especially for guys behind Spore) - they often put so much effort just to see their effort being ruined by intrusive DRM. If only some publishers put more trust in gamers...
On the other hand - just read through the news section of SecuROM(Sony DADC) webpage. It's really OUTRAGEOUS they attribute success of some high-selling games to themselves!!! Not even EA deserves to suffer for whatever brainwashing techniques SecuRom uses against them to lure them to use their DRM.
I'm sure there are many other potential customers like me, I thought we'd established by now the DRM = BAD and is effectively shooting yourself in the foot, especially the draconian versions like SecuROM
This culture is not only prevalent in the games industry. It's everywhere. Money rule too much. And our society will suffer because of it. Something is seriously screwed up when a company does something that they know will cause controversy and mistrust, but still go on with it because they can't let go of the greed.
Why do you think we have a financial crisis at the moment? This is just a taste of what to come.
QTF. ;) EA bought SecuROM as a replacement for Stardock DRM 2-3 (?) years ago. Back then SecuROM was as benign as Stardock was, they were almost identical products and nobody really had a problem with it. However SecuROM has now quickly evolved into a "meaner" restrictive version and unfortunately EA are seemingly blindly tithed to Sony and using their DRM software.
It's not just a simple DRM, it installs separately to the game without your knowledge...if you un-install the game...it DOESN'T un-install the SecuRom, which makes it a rootkit (malware), so if you don't know this, you will think it's gone because it hides in "hidden folders" and in your "Registry", not to mention disabling of some AV's ,the damage it does to some PC hardware, and stops you from being able to use legal software that SecuRom has been programmed to black band. EA deserves to be sued over this issue alone.
The other issue I have with this type of Draconian DRM is that when you can't afford the internet anymore, you can no longer Play a Game you Paid for, and that is wrong...most games aren't played over the Net so why do we have to be connected to it. ( It's to Spy on PC users, that's why it Phones Home with Encrypted Data.)
There is a lot bigger picture than what we're seeing here right now, this is only a baby step to the end plan. This has nothing to do with piracy, because we know that the pirates will never be stopped and it is proven once again with the amount of torrented copies of Spore downloaded so far in less than a month. Why is EA adamant about continuing to use SecuRom when they know its not doing what they say it was intended for and is only effecting the paying customers. I will not buy anything that is put out by EA or Sony anymore, even though I would love to buy Sims2 IKEA, Sims2 Apartment Life, Spore and Red Alert 3, but I just don't trust EA or Sony. All they have done for the last 18 months is lie through their teeth to save their neck and not a bit of concern for their paying customers.
I'm also a member at Reclaim Your Game: http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/ and were dedicated to helping other gamers with their issues with SecuRom and get info out to educate to public. We also have a SecuRom Removal Instruction Walkthrough Tutorial on the site for people to use and were in the process of updating it.
So please feel free to visit our site and see for yourself.
There's a 53 page thread (last time I looked) on the spore forum that EA specifically set up asking for comments the moment their realised that the comments were all about the DRM they stopped responding despite posting on other parts of the forum so I would say Yes, people have tried to start a conversation with EA but EA have stuck their fingers in their ears and started humming loudly at the top of their voice so that they don't have to listen.
Give it a very little while then watch as people start to complain over the fact that they can not install the game that they purchased on their PC any more because they have used the 3 installs.
LOL like that makes it any better lol
EA needs to sort this PR disaster out before it costs them even more as prior to this. it was just gamers that were complaining about the DRM but this situation has now got the general buyers complaining as well. That can not be good for business.
The only copy protection that i've known is pure evil is Starforce which happened to actually wreck some peoples dvd/cd drives.
EA and other companies are using it to limit paying customers use of the game.
You have to authenticate online a single player game in order to play it and you are limited to the numbers of times you can activate the game, usually three or five activations.
Besides, Securom is a pain to uninstall from your system.
As always with DRM, its use is pointless.
Whoever pirates the game has free liberty to install and uninstall the games as he/she/it pleases, but the paying customer has limitations to the use of the game he/she/it bought.
I'll make sure I avoid any games with the new Securom then. THanks!
personally i'd say make it cheaper **** the drm.
cheaper game= more sales.and it's done with the same profit margin as u no longer need to pay for drm development.
untill the guys at ea and co figure this out i'll pirate whatever game i want. i'll happily spend money on a game il like that comes without any fancy drm crap.
in the end theyjust hurt themselves. if u want to turn a profit u gotta keep the consumer happy.
must only be with new Securom version. I have no Securom things installed. I think the Securom on my game is used in a different way.
On mine its just to prevent copying the disc (it was very hard to make a backup).
Second, you are wrong about Spore being cracked after only a few days. Spore was available on torrent sites, with all that pesky DRM removed, well before the release date. EA has irritated thousands of paying customers by including DRM which had already failed to achieve its intended purpose before it was even released.
I didn't rent the game. I bought it. When EA inevitably shuts down the activation servers or goes bankrupt, I will lose my ability to play the game. EA will have essentially stolen my game from me, simply because they were concerned that I would steal it from them. In reality, the worst I would have done with the game is reinstalled it on my own personal computer several times. Is that considered stealing, these days?
Software companies don't treat software licensing correctly. This could be a long rant, and is only slightly related to the topic, so I'll instead direct you to a very interesting article I stumbled across a few days ago.
so, people are mad that:
1. 3 or 5 or 7 intalls:
they want to buy a game once, and then use it on multiple installations, on different computers, ect ect..
seriously, i know many people are like "what i can only install it 7 times?!?!?! i format my harddrive every 3 weeks!" but seriously, the way it is now you can put it on 7 computers, and you just call them when you format, reinstall ect... 7 computers people.
2. you only get 1 user account per disk.
well, frikken duh. 1 person bought the game. if you want the whole family to use the game, then the user account is for the family. the purchase reflects the usage.
3. greed? where does come from? they are not being greedy, by selling you what you pay for. too many people think "i have a computer, i GET to have stuff for free" like copies of friend's games, copies of CD's, copies of DVD's. if people would just start getting used to paying for their stuff, they would realize that tis is not greed, it is business. you want it, they have it....pay for it. if you don't want it enough to pay what they want for it, it is not just your RIGHT to have it for less, or free.
4. well, i am done typing for now....about it, but think people.
"OMFG, i has to pay for stuff? BS, i own a Computer, i can just borrow (i.e use forever and never actually pay for) other people's stuff for free."
secureROM does not do the evils that people act like it does, quit jumping on the "i heard form this guy in a forum" bandwagon and buy or it, or don't buy it, don't sue becasue they want you tp actually pay for the game.
if it is that bad, torrent it.
You start installing the game, something, anything randomly goes just slightly wrong during installation. The game does not work but activation #1 is used.
You ring up EA tech support, they tell you to uninstall and re-install the game - Activation #2 has now been used.
The game now works, but you find your pc struggles with it, so you buy and install a new graphics card. The securom checks the hardware and finds it has changed, so qualifies this as a new PC, activation #3 is now used when you start the game back up.
You happen to log onto a different user account on the PC for some reason, the securom identifies this as a new install, activation #4 is now used.
Back to the original user account and it again picks up as it being installed on a different pc, activation #5 is used.
Nothing too fantastical there and most of them backed up by accounts of users running into those types of problems with mass effect too, so its far from impossible for a normal user to run into problems quickly, never mind wanting to come back and play the game again later as many of us do.
On the general topic of DRM, I've been reading the pieces published on Penny arcade's frontpage just lately with interest and am particularly fond of this final paragraph of the piece by the CEO of Three rings (puzzle pirates etc)
i already call MS to activate windows, i don't want to do this with my other games, that and considering the cost of the calls... yes, i am very angry about this.
edit: they also reserve the right to say no to your plea to request another installation...
So basically, it's a lose lose situation, and I don't understand that.
What Will Wright Thinks About Spore's DRM