Spore

In this, my final look (at least for the time being) at the lawsuit surrounding Spore and SecuROM, I’ll offer up my own views on how this whole sorry affair could have been handled in a far better fashion. I’ll also give a few suggestions as to how this could be better handled for future products.

After spending the first four parts of this series looking at the lawsuit in depth, lets once again, go over the basic point of the lawsuit, without all the details getting in the way. The lawsuit was basically filled because purchasers, according to the lawsuit, are not made aware that DRM in the form of SecuROM is included in their purchase as a separately installed program. Although the lawsuit does acknowledge that purchasers are made aware that the games uses “access control and copy protection technology”.

That basic point alone is quite reasonable. All publishers in the gaming industry would benefit from being far more open about the use of copy protection and DRM systems used within their software. This could be achieved by simply including wording on the back of the box which is similar to “This product includes the SecuROM DRM technology.” A URL should also be supplied with that text pointing the purchaser to a page on the publisher’s site which provides easily understandable, detailed information on the copy protection/DRM used in the game, along with all required information for uninstallation of any components left behind once the game is uninstalled. An additional URL pointing to the company site of the developer of the copy protection/DRM should also be included either on the packaging or at the aforementioned page on the publisher’s site.

The same principle applies to the EULA which Electronic Arts expects you to agree to when you install Spore. The EULA needs wording in a clearly, more easily digestible format, to be presented to potential purchases before the point of purchase. The game specific EULA should be hosted on the publisher’s website at a location where it can be accessed by anybody, regardless of their geographical location, in the language of the potential purchaser’s choosing (or at least, in all languages within which the game has been localised to). The location of this EULA, then needs to be clearly listed on the back of the box. Sadly, EA games currently only sport the following text on the back of their packaging:

INTERNET CONNECTION, ONLINE AUTHENTICATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY.

There is no indication of where that EULA can be read before the point of purchase, so it is impossible for the purchaser to disagree with it in a fashion in which they won’t be left out of pocket. In the case of Spore’s EULA, this is even more important as it is within the EULA that the purchaser is made aware of the DRM system (online authentication) included within the game. The wording of the EULA, or at least additional wording, should be supplied so that the basic terms of purchase, including DRM and copy protection information, is made available in a clearly understandable fashion. I suggest the use of bullet points to highlight the most important information. The current EULAs with their legal speak should be offered at the end of the page for those interested in reading that version, but it is of utmost importance that an easily understandable set of terms to agree to, be supplied to potential purchasers. Consistency with the wording of the EULA, regardless of the language it is presented in or the region for which it is aimed, is a must. The omission of EULA and DRM information from some manuals, for example, is inexcusable. The EULA offered on the Spore site, should be the exact same one displayed during the installation purchase – especially in regards to the Technical Protection Measures paragraph.

Unfortunately, that one point was the only thing the lawsuit really had going for it, and it really wasn’t enough to warrant the lawsuit. At least not to the extent of the current damages and so forth that the plaintiff is trying to get. The lawsuit didn’t even touch on the most important concern of the current DRM system in Spore. There was not one mention, outside of the copy and pasted Amazon reviews and the Spore support FAQ, of the limited number of activations granted to the end user. And it is these activation limits that are causing the most problems and confusions for purchasers of Spore! So why didn’t the lawsuit focus on this? Perhaps it was because the lawyers simply do not appear to know what they are talking about, as evidenced by their choice of research material, and did not care enough to actually study the issue at hand before running off to the court house with the intention of making large sums of money.

You only need to glance at forums around the Internet and at some of the Amazon reviews to realise that many, many people do not understand how the activation system is supposed to work. The basic concept is that the purchaser will be able to activate their game on n number of PCs, and will be able to install the game an unlimited number of times on each activated PC. So, the purchaser can theoretically activate Spore on two PCs, and install it as many times as she wishes, as long as she is installing the game on those two PCs. When she installs her game on a third PC, her final activation will be used up and she will no longer be able to activate the game on any other PC. But she will still be able to uninstall and reinstall it as many times as she wishes on those three PCs. This system has been likened to the iTunes flavour of DRM in which a song can be authorised for play on up to 5 PCs simultaneously. However, unlike the iTunes system, there is no ability to deauthorize a PC to reclaim an activation for use on a fourth PC. It is this issue which the lawsuit should have covered as it is by far the more damaging system for the larger majority of customers than the unfounded, unsupported and, in some cases, untrue SecuROM claims that fill the lawsuit as it currently stands.

The idea of imposing only three activations with no ability to deactivate a previous activation is preposterous. Even EA themselves recognised this to some extent and promised to increase that limit to five PCs. Unfortunately, if you are the owner of a first batch copy of Spore, you’re still stuck with the three PC limit. According to EA support staff it isn’t being raised for you. The validity of that statement though, is unproven as EA support has a reputation for being unreliable, unknowledgeable and unhelpful. Electronic Arts also claims that they will now allow players to deauthorize a PC, but so far this only appears possible through support channels. And that just isn’t a reliable method. The phone calls are also prohibitively expensive for overseas customers. Electronic Arts must provide, via a patch (if required), the ability for Spore to deauthorize itself during the uninstallation process. Just as iTunes offers its customers the ability to deauthenticate a PC directly through the iTunes software. It’s also worth noting that EA claim that less than 1% of Spore purchasers require more than three activations. However, this statement is seriously flawed given that it is based on current sales of the Creature Creator and Spore. Neither of which have been on sale for more than a year yet. My advice to EA is for them to study Bioshock and to follow the same route that 2K took following the concerns of their customers; adding the ability to deauthorize on uninstallation and (eventually) removing the authentication limit completely.

I would also suggest that Electronic Arts simply stop using their current method of DRM completely. It’s useless. Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello is on record as having stated the following.

I personally don’t like DRM. It interrupts the user experience. We would like to get around that. But there is this problem called piracy out there.

Well, Mr. Riccitiello, if you hadn’t already noticed, let me state that DRM does not stop piracy. It never has. It never will. Others would be quick to go as far as to state that the inclusion of DRM even increases the potential for a product to be pirated. Searching around the Internet you can find many pirates claiming that they only pirated the game because of the DRM. I expect that the truth of the matter is more that they had absolutely no intention whatsoever to ever purchase Spore, regardless of whether the SecuROM DRM had been included or not. They are simply trying to justify their act of piracy. The people truly concerned about the DRM would have had, I hope, the sense to go out and purchase the game and then simply obtain the single file required to circumnavigate the DRM system. Although that too is considered illegal, at least you actually legally purchased your game. And I won’t even bother addressing the idiocy of claims that pirating a game shows the developers/publishers that you don’t like the DRM.

In regards to DRM, I’d also like to suggest that Spore already comes with the best version of DRM there already is. And it’s non-invasive to boot. It doesn’t install to your PC and it doesn’t require reauthentication either. Simply put, the online content of the game is enough to persuade many people to purchase the game as large amounts of this content is not available to those who pirate Spore. While pirates may be able to add user content to their game via “content packs” they are unable to upload their own content, to gain achievements, to use Sporecasts and so forth. If Electronic Arts spent more time on further expanding this aspect of the game (at no extra charge to the purchaser) they will already have provided a reason for most people opposed to DRM to actually go out and buy the game. That is, if they are actually considering purchasing the game and not just trying to justify their actions of piracy. In which case no amount (or lack thereof) of DRM is ever going to stop them from using torrents or other sources to illegally obtain the game they have their sights on.

In terms of the lawsuit, the only hope left for these lawyers is if they suddenly manage to actually start backing up their claims in regards to SecuROM installing to the kernel, retract their false claim that SecuROM cannot be uninstalled and can somehow manage to actually find proof of the damage that SecuROM does. And all without having to rely on Amazon reviews. Simply put, I will be utterly amazed if this lawsuit amounts to anything significant. I just hope that Melissa Thomas can afford all the resulting legal fees, for her sake.

Finally, in the words of Positech’s Cliff Harris, this entire fiasco was a “totally avoidable disaster.”

Thanks for reading!

Read the first part of this series
Read the second part of this series
Read the third part of this series
Read the fourth part of this series

Also worth reading: