The Spore controversy continues as Electronic Artsā Mariam Sughayer has been talking to MTV and responding to the biggest complaints that people have with the gameās āanti-piracyā measures. It would seem that, while EA refuses to back down on many of the issues, there is at least the suggestion that Sporeās three computer install limit is changing.
That will be changed, according to the EA spokesperson, who told Multiplayer that the current limit on the number of computers that can be associated with a single copy of āSporeā is āvery similar to a solution that iTunes has. The difference is that with iTunes you can de-authorize a computer [that you no longer want associated with your iTunes content]. Right now, with our solution, you canāt. But there is a patch coming for that.ā The official timeframe for that patch is ānear future.ā
EA also responded to fears that SecuROM installs Spyware by stating, obviously, that it doesnāt. The spokesperson was also quick to point out that it found a virus in a torrent of its game, and assured customers that the only way to guarantee a Malware-free Spore was to buy it. In answer to the question regarding multiple accounts per copy, EA only reiterated that the manual section stating you could do this is a misprint. The company did not comment on the very real issue of families not being able to create their own accounts without each buying a whole new copy of the game.
The company rep also had this to say regarding the current authentication process which runs every time the player accesses the online features:
If we were to ever turn off the servers on the game [making authentication impossible] we would put through a patch before that to basically make the DRM null and void. Weāre never walking away from the game and making it into a situation where people arenāt going to be able to play it.
Well, there you go. Frankly, Iām not too sure thatās good enough. To me, the worst part of this whole DRM nonsense was the restriction of one account per copy, and thatās something EA is refusing to address. Perhaps because itās the most transparently greedy part of the whole thing? Who knows?
Published: Sep 17, 2008 4:29 AM UTC