My challenge to John Riccitiello.

“‘I'm guessing that half of them were pirates, and the other half were people caught up in something that they didn’t understand,” he says. “If I’d had a chance to have a conversation with them, they’d have gotten it.”

@Dairuka: Please confront him with how he sees the complaining people as either criminals or ignorant idiots.

Good Luck

Ryuujin wrote:"Half are pirates, half got caught up in something they don't understand"

What part of "damaging my operating system" don't I understand?

On top of that, SecuROM prevents some users from even playing the game.

Torbin wrote:It wasn't always like this with Stardock, either. Both GalCiv and Sins offered stand alone patches that didn't require you to verify authenticity to Impulse, but as of August, that changed...

Uh, I installed the full version of SOASE yesterday. I bought it from Best Buy for $39.99. The last non-beta patch (v1.05) is still available for download and installation without needing Impulse. Impulse does not install automatically or unknowingly onto your machine. Impulse does not run constantly in the background, or with administrator rights. You use it, you close it, it leaves.

So far as being required to register my software to receive downloads, OH NOES! You mean I'll have to register my game with Stardock in order to receive FREE DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT?!? The horror.

Parvati wrote:*snip*
Personally I see it as every humans duty to educate the masses.

Ah, good man. We're gonna need a lot of people like you to save the world from...ourselves

Just wanted to address this real quick: “‘I'm guessing that half of them were pirates, and the other half were people caught up in something that they didn’t understand,”

First off, pirated versions of Spore don't come with SecuROM, so pirates aren't being inconvenienced by it, and so they probably aren't wasting their time yelling about it. But this was a good move on his part...with one wag of the tongue, Riccitiello just deligitimized 50% of all DRM-related complaints. Clearly if you have an issue, you're doing something wrong. No wonder where...other people...have picked up this knee-jerk attitude.

Second...yes, I would say that MORE than half of complaints are from people caught up in something they don't understand...BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION! Sorry for the caps but this really pisses me off. Here's an analogy that I think will hold. In most cafeterias nowadays, they're required to put up a sign of some kind if there is a chance that their food might contain allergens like peanuts. If a cafeteria neglets to put up the expected sign, you're SPORE sure there are going to be a few people in the room who eat the food and start turning purple, and chances are, they wouldn't understand what was happening either.

I'm sure there are some holes in that analogy, but the ol' noggin doesn't work too great 'till I load up on caffeine

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 10/16/2008 15:32:13

“‘I'm guessing that half of them were pirates, and the other half were people caught up in something that they didn’t understand,”

Translation: So you're a pirate or stupid.

Pretty much there AP...Apparently, those who are worried about the securities of their online activity such as bill paying, credit cards, identity and the likes are stupid or pirates...

Torbin wrote:

Dairuka wrote:
Point #2: You don't need DRM to protect the sales of your product, as Stardock's recent smash-hit, Sins of a Solar Empire has proven.

At the risk of being one starred to death, I'd like to interject with an off-topic rant... simply because I'm getting sick and tired of people sugar coating the pile of crap publicity Stardock pulls with SoaSE.

Let me break it to you easy first. Stardock isn't the sweet innocent little indy people gloss them up to be. They lie and manipulate the public just as much as Bethesda and Electronic Arts.

They say that Sins of a Solar Empire's sells are top of the charts, mainly because of their disbelief in any DRM scheme that other companies use.

MYTHBUSTER FACT 1;

Sins of a Solar Empire does NOT top sales chart, nor has it at any point, on ANY vendor list except their own Impulse. First, take a look at Impulses catalog of games and then tell me why it's on top. Thats right, beyond Sins and GalCiv... that catalog isn't exactly boasting grade A titles. It's not suprising that Sins is top of sales on Impulse... everything else sucks

Beyond Impulse, Sins doesn't even have a track record of ever being on large chain stores Top 10...(ie best buy, target, circut city... can't include Wal*mart because they don't poll thier software anymore). Latest PR Stardock gave over the sale of Sins marks it just over the 500k mark, which [in the grande scheme of sales] isn't much.

But, that's fine~ Stardock also claims they don't develop thier games according to market, they develope according to player base. Smaller target audience, smaller sales. But that doesn't exactly give them room to say that Sins is a "smash-hit"

MYTHBUSTER FACT 2;

DRM does not mean "Disk Copy Protection"... Sins of a Solar Empire still has it's own form of DRM... it's DRM? Impulse. Like Steam is to Half-life, Impulse is to Sins. You cannot play online, recieve patches or install the upcoming expansion without registering your CD-Key through Impulse. Your license is also controlled via Impulse.. just like your steam games are licensed through steam.

Granted, Impulse and Steam both aren't nearly as draconian as Sony's Securom, they STILL use online DRM checks to ensure your using a legitamate copy.

It wasn't always like this with Stardock, either. Both GalCiv and Sins offered stand alone patches that didn't require you to verify authenticity to Impulse, but as of August, that changed... and if you think it's NOT because they're concerned about piracy, you're a fool.

Stardock's PR over thier "Great Sells without DRM" and thier "Gamers Bill of Rights" are nothing more than publicity stunts to get people to buy thier software. They blanket facts with media espionage just like every other company.

this is cool

All right, Riccitiello. You claim that 50% of those complaining are pirates? Well, how many of those were potentially legitimate customers without the DRM, who would have paid $50 to get a game without restrictions? You have statistics in that area, estimates based on your own models, but of course you're not going to admit that. And let's face it, splitting it into half-and-half, night-and-day is a gross overexaggeration and oversimplification of the actual community dynamics. Most of the pirates aren't bothering to participate in the public outcry - they're off playing their fully unlocked game!

And now the other half of that statement - that everyone else is completely misinformed. The fact is, we ARE misinformed, because you've taken pains not to explain what is going on. You haven't denied that and you've given some hints that something prevents you from doing so, but that doesn't make it okay.

I'll grant there is a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) being spread among those that decry SecuROM. The software's potential to open security holes is among them - it is not presently known that any such issue exists at all. Causing general harm to computers is also on the list - there's no cases directly attributable to the software. However, there are legitimate concerns, such as how the customer support side of the issue is being handled (adding new installations), and how hardware changes cause installations to be consumed without this being immediately apparent or at all documented by EA. By simply stating we don't understand, you have completely dismissed the underlying arguments without any support for this dismissal.

Until we can have the frank discussion you'd like to have with us, statements as the one given here are simply deflective.

Oh, and claiming you don't like the DRM is simply an appeal to pity and popularity without any weight behind it (with a disanalogy to national and personal security thrown in) and is thus fallacious, and most importantly, irrelevant.

Ryalseth wrote:a lot of words *snip* *snip* *snip*

There!

Intelligent, reasonable, sensible.
Your post summed it up in a nice tight package.

I am going to rate you for that.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 10/16/2008 16:28:37

Torbin wrote:Let me break it to you easy first. Stardock isn't the sweet innocent little indy people gloss them up to be. They lie and manipulate the public just as much as Bethesda and Electronic Arts.

Does Torbin work for EA, or something? Wow that's a big load of steaming propaganda.

Stardock isn't purely altruistic, because no business is, but they don't lie.

They do exactly what they say they do: They don't punish honest buyers under the cloak of punishing pirates. Instead, they reward honest buyers.

Yet, Torbin actually complains that they keep these rewards from those without registered serial numbers. Does he want them to reward everyone? That would kind of miss the point, wouldn't it?

Yes, Stardock manipulated me. They manipulated me by offering me exactly what I asked for, plus some nifty free extras, with no hassle, so I bought their game. I feel so cheap.

It's very, very simple. EA's plan does nothing to pirates, and hurts the honest buyer. Stardock's plan probably hurts the pirates, and rewards the honest buyer. That's all that matters.

Spending that much time and typing to try to convince anyone that Stardock's DRM is just as bad as EA's borders on insanity.

Picking on Sins's popularity is equally nuts. It's hardly the only game they make, and who cares how well it sells? What does that have to do with the fact that their DRM is better than anything else out there?

Torbin seems to think that if Sins only sold one copy, it somehow makes EA less evil. Can't say I agree, there.

By the way, I wonder how long it'll be before "Stardock" is censored by the filter, on this forum. ^_^

Rhedd wrote:By the way, I wonder how long it'll be before "Stardock" is censored by the filter, on this forum. ^_^

You know, I'm incredibly paranoid by nature, but even I can't imagine them censoring SPOREdock..

MinionJoe wrote:

Rhedd wrote:By the way, I wonder how long it'll be before "Stardock" is censored by the filter, on this forum. ^_^

You know, I'm incredibly paranoid by nature, but even I can't imagine them censoring SPOREdock..

LOL

MinionJoe wrote:You know, I'm incredibly paranoid by nature, but even I can't imagine them censoring SPOREdock..

^_^

I actually thought of that because I saw a post the other day that quoted an article about another game, and it took me a moment to stop being confused, because everywhere it should've said the game's name, it said "SPORE" instead.

Not sure what the game was, but this sort of thing has already happened.

John Riccitiello is a coward. He's arguably one of the biggest cowards in the realm of public figures. The man has the audacity to complain about not having the ability to sit down with people who are complaining about the DRM, yet there's hundreds of them hanging out on forums EA pays to operate and many who send letters to EA to protest the DRM. John Riccitiello doesn't even seem to realize that his company is getting sued over the DRM and will likely be completely absent from the legal case. This is typical talking out of one side of your mouth and then doing something completely different. The way he pulls statistics out of his ass and makes assumptions about people just goes to show how much contempt and ignorance he has towards the people who buy or want to buy his company's games. If I held voting stock in EA, I'd be voting at every opportunity to kick this guy out of EA. His conduct and lack of awareness on the issues is mind boggling.

...and then - the forum was closed....