spore ^_^

[.:kerrod:.]

what think you?

I wouldn't say it's a 'compelling' game :p but it's fairly entertaining...it makes me want to keep playing, but not to the point where i can't get off it, which is good, i guess :tongue:

so yeah, how many of you have gotten your hands on this game already and what do you think?

[Roto13]

I haven't played it, but I've been paying attention to it. :P The general consensus of the reviews is that it's not nearly as deep or engrossing as a game that follows life itself from the primordial ooze all the way to exploring the universe should be, but it's still good. xP

[Psychotic]

My brother has it and I watched him play it for a while. Yeah, it's interesting and all that, but it's not earth-shatteringly brilliant.

[Moon Rabbits]

I thought it was being released on the 7th. Or the 27th ... something like that.

Anyway, I'm still excited.

[Roto13]

It was leaked a couple of days ago. :P

[Miriel]

The only reason I'm kind of interested in this is cause it's available for Mac. I watched my cousin play the demo on his Macbook Pro, and I was just like, "whoaa... a game. On a Mac!"

Not exactly sold on the idea that making little monster creatures is gonna be all that fun.

[Markus. D]

I think they maybe overhyped it just a slight.

But from what I've seen it looks like another solid Wright-brand game.

[Madame Adequate]

It got overhyped, but that wasn't exactly Maxis' fault. (They actually tried to dampen the hype down.) But if you discard expectations of game of the century or whatever, and just go in with the intent of having fun - you'll have a http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifload of fun. It's not perfect, but yeah I spent about an hour tinkering around building a spaceship and I enjoyed every minute, and the last result.

General consensus seems to be think of Spore as a toy more than as a game.

[Yew-Yevon]

I have the creature creater but I got pissed off when it said I need internet to play it. I don't have an online conection :( I even have some animals I made in the trial virsion I wanted to upload through the library. :(:(

[DMKA]

I'm about to steal it and play it. Hasn't everyone been saying it'll hands down be the best game ever for the last two or so years?

[Yeargdribble]

I bought the game early in the morning of release (because I was up). It's a good game. It's fun if a bit repetitive. I'd have to say the hype may have been too much. The concept is awesome, but the result leaves a bit to be desired. I didn't believe the reviews that said early stages were a bit too simplistic, but they were right. These are still fun, but I could see people forgoing them on replays just because of the repetitive nature. Even with new creatures each time it's just not going to be that different because the game-play (most notably in creature and tribal stages) is going to be the exact same regardless of the variety of other creatures.

The big no-no is the DRM. You get 3 installations... period. This is not a purchase, it's a rental. If you are the type that changes hardware or likes to format their HD with any regularity I'd suggest not buying the game.

I'm not one for piracy, but honestly, the only way to get the 'full' version of this game is by pirating it so that you aren't limited. I'll probably end up pirating it to supplement my retail copy simply because I do tend to format at least once or twice a year and I have several computers I'd like to put it on and don't feel that I should be limited on where I'm allowed to play the game I purchased.


All that said, it is a good, solid game. It is enjoyable, but sadly I don't think it lives up to the hype and it has some costly strings attached.

[scrumpleberry]

My puta isn't new enough for it x) Played a friend's copy and loved it. Not the best game evar by any means, but very very good and fun nonetheless.

[smittenkitten]

I think it's awesome! :cool: It's just sooo huge, there's like over 500,000 planets or something. That's just crazy. I'm really enjoying it, I'm at space level and kicking galatic butt. :kaofight:

[Loony BoB]

Never paid a huge amount of attention to the hype aside from thinking "Hey, this game looks interesting and it's one of the few out there that I'd like to buy."

I love it. I don't care that it's extremely simple for the most part - I've been playing it on normal and it felt like easy until I realised that Danielle's game in the space stage was way more difficult than mine. She got surrounded by red in a very quick way and the amount of star systems she could colonise were extremely limited in comparison to my game. She restarted the space stage and had a relatively easy run, so I think a lot of it has to do with the randomised starting system layout and so forth. You could get a good or bad run depending on these sort of things.

To me it quickly became a sort of RP/RTS game once it got to the space stage. I'm ignoring the earlier stages because they are so tiny in comparison to this stage. But yeah, I enjoy it well enough. If you've seen some of my threads in this forum you know I'll love exploration-styled games, and this is right up my alley. I love that I can explore an entire galaxy and meet genuine aliens. I say 'genuine' in that there aren't just the same ten guys that most other games will restrict it to.

There could be a lot more to it, sure. But there could be a lot more to a lot of games. I think the pacing is actually perfect, really - particularly during the final stage (again). That helps a lot, because I haven't got to the point that I got to in other exploration-styled games (yet) such as Oblivion, where I just think "Eh, now for another pointlessly long journey to get to the next point of the game where I basically do the same thing I did just now (yawn)."

[Captain Maxx Power]

DRM is killing the reviews on Amazon and such for this game, the same way that Mass Effect did. I don't know when EA will get the message that we don't want to become part of their evil empire just to play some evolution simulator. I've refused to buy both Mass Effect and Spore because of these ridiculous draconian anti-piracy measures.

[Roto13]

It's getting pretty close to 2000 one-star reviews. xP

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Spore (http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FKBCX4/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1)

[~*~Celes~*~]

I didn't think it looked all that interesting, but from what you all are saying about building colonies and stuff, it sounds more interesting than I thought :monster: I don't feel like forking out $50 for a game right about now though.

[.:kerrod:.]

im up to the space stage now (which didnt take very long, and i was trying to do as much as i could before advancing, ie. befriending or attacking as many creatures as possible, etc.) and i'm kinda over it...i almost can't be bothered doing what i have to...but i might keep soldiering on in the hope that it sparks my interest again, otherwise i'll just have to wait for Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, which i am mega pumped for :D

[smittenkitten]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/Reaha/smittenold4copy.jpg

This was my old smitten. ^__^

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/Reaha/smitten2copy.jpg
This is the one I've stuck with and it's so cute! :heart:

[Værn]

I never tried it out. Mostly because my computer wouldn't have been able to run it. And also because of this. (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20080627)

[smittenkitten]

I never tried it out. Mostly because my computer wouldn't have been able to run it. And also because of this. (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20080627)

Yeah I work in GAME and we already nick name it Sporn. :p

[Rostum]

So wait. Do you actually get to visit other player's planets and interact with them? Or is it just downloadable content that players upload to a server?

[Loony BoB]

So wait. Do you actually get to visit other player's planets and interact with them? Or is it just downloadable content that players upload to a server?
Both. You don't directly interact with the other players, but you do directly interact with the other player's creations as they download into your game from the server. I don't believe that it would be possible for every player to have their own planet, though - there are too few planets for that (assuming they want to sell a decent amount of games, which I'm sure they will).

As for people not wanting to "give in to the EA empire" I find it all rather silly. I can understand people making a protest by way of Amazon or whatever, I suppose - although it does just go to show that you can't rely on Amazon's reviews as they aren't basing their one-star reviews on anything but the fact it's an EA game with EA's anti-piracy measures. But I don't get why people simply don't buy a game because it's an EA game. I mean, can't you just hack it easily enough? If not, oh well, your loss. Spore - and Mass Effect even more so - is a quality game and anyone who doesn't play it just because it's an EA game is missing out.

[Captain Maxx Power]

As for people not wanting to "give in to the EA empire" I find it all rather silly. I can understand people making a protest by way of Amazon or whatever, I suppose - although it does just go to show that you can't rely on Amazon's reviews as they aren't basing their one-star reviews on anything but the fact it's an EA game with EA's anti-piracy measures. But I don't get why people simply don't buy a game because it's an EA game. I mean, can't you just hack it easily enough? If not, oh well, your loss. Spore - and Mass Effect even more so - is a quality game and anyone who doesn't play it just because it's an EA game is missing out.

The problem is that EA is essentially pissing all over their customer base. Imagine if you went out and bought yourself a movie from a shop. You take it home and play it in your DVD player. Everything seems fine. You then proceed to play it on your DVD player on your computer, and then the DVD player on your laptop. Then your friend wants to borrow the movie to see it. But when he takes it home, the movie refuses to play. You then find out that the movie can only ever be watched on the pieces of equipment you've got. To top it all off, any piece of equipment you've used it on now has software that is capable of logging your activities on those players by the company you bought it from.

This is essentially what the DRM on Spore and Mass Effect does. It prevents you from playing the games on more than three machines in total (this includes anytime you decide to upgrade your computer enough to warrant wiping the O/S, AND any laptops you may want to play it on), and in the long run means that when the time comes for you to possibly sell the game on you can't, because the copy you own is locked out and becomes a very expensive coaster. Also the software they use sits on your computer's hard-drive permanently even after you've uninstalled the game. Considering the software is designed to contact EA to register the game who knows what other data it could send? In computing parlance such programs would be trojans or spyware, but because EA can write it off as anti-piracy measures it's allowed to fly. But in reality it's an invasive violation of privacy.

No one should have to put up with this. The PC market is being artificially torn apart by these ridiculous anti-piracy measures. None of you console jockies have to put up with this and I don't see why we should. I'm hoping the gaming community sends a clear message to EA by not buying this game or downloading it instead.

[Madame Adequate]

DRM isn't to hurt pirates. They know DRM can't stop pirates, heck Spore was on the torrents within hours of its Aussie release. The very purpose of DRM is one of its supposed side-effects: Destroying the second hand market.

Publishers have hated that for years. In Japan the big guys have actually been trying to make it illegal since at least the mid 90s. Now they can dress it up like this - as a protection against lawbreaking - and the people who know the truth about how ineffective it is aren't that big a sector of the market anymore.

People talk about how DRM hurts legitimate consumers like that's not the point of it.

[Roto13]

As for people not wanting to "give in to the EA empire" I find it all rather silly. I can understand people making a protest by way of Amazon or whatever, I suppose - although it does just go to show that you can't rely on Amazon's reviews as they aren't basing their one-star reviews on anything but the fact it's an EA game with EA's anti-piracy measures. But I don't get why people simply don't buy a game because it's an EA game. I mean, can't you just hack it easily enough? If not, oh well, your loss. Spore - and Mass Effect even more so - is a quality game and anyone who doesn't play it just because it's an EA game is missing out.

If you buy it, you're telling EA it's ok to do it, and that you don't mind being screwed over by overbearing DRM. The only way they're going to stop this is if it hurts sales.


DRM isn't to hurt pirates. They know DRM can't stop pirates, heck Spore was on the torrents within hours of its Aussie release. The very purpose of DRM is one of its supposed side-effects: Destroying the second hand market.

Publishers have hated that for years. In Japan the big guys have actually been trying to make it illegal since at least the mid 90s. Now they can dress it up like this - as a protection against lawbreaking - and the people who know the truth about how ineffective it is aren't that big a sector of the market anymore.

People talk about how DRM hurts legitimate consumers like that's not the point of it.

Either way, it's just driving more people to pirate their games. People aren't just going to buy it and not resell it. They're not going to buy it in the first place.

[Loony BoB]

As for people not wanting to "give in to the EA empire" I find it all rather silly. I can understand people making a protest by way of Amazon or whatever, I suppose - although it does just go to show that you can't rely on Amazon's reviews as they aren't basing their one-star reviews on anything but the fact it's an EA game with EA's anti-piracy measures. But I don't get why people simply don't buy a game because it's an EA game. I mean, can't you just hack it easily enough? If not, oh well, your loss. Spore - and Mass Effect even more so - is a quality game and anyone who doesn't play it just because it's an EA game is missing out.

If you buy it, you're telling EA it's ok to do it, and that you don't mind being screwed over by overbearing DRM. The only way they're going to stop this is if it hurts sales.
No, if I buy it it means that I want to play the game. I don't give a crap about the whole 3-installs thing affecting second-hand sales, either. So you can't buy it second hand? Oh boo hoo. Couple of years in therapy, you'll get over it.

Basically if you want to play a game, save up the amount that you feel is worth spending on it. I just happen to believe it's worth the £27 or so I spent on it, and was more than happy to spend that amount. I'd have spent more if it wasn't that cheap at the place I bought it from. It's a fairly unique game and I felt like something different. I'm also happy to encourage EA (by giving them my money) to keep financing this sort of innovation.

[Madame Adequate]

Either way, it's just driving more people to pirate their games. People aren't just going to buy it and not resell it. They're not going to buy it in the first place.

Oh, completely agreed. If the only way someone can get the game is new, and the price doesn't come down, people might just end up pirating then, even years after the game comes out. But I just don't think DRM is about piracy, even though piracy is a consequence of both its stated purpose and what I think is its real purpose :p

[Roto13]

As for people not wanting to "give in to the EA empire" I find it all rather silly. I can understand people making a protest by way of Amazon or whatever, I suppose - although it does just go to show that you can't rely on Amazon's reviews as they aren't basing their one-star reviews on anything but the fact it's an EA game with EA's anti-piracy measures. But I don't get why people simply don't buy a game because it's an EA game. I mean, can't you just hack it easily enough? If not, oh well, your loss. Spore - and Mass Effect even more so - is a quality game and anyone who doesn't play it just because it's an EA game is missing out.

If you buy it, you're telling EA it's ok to do it, and that you don't mind being screwed over by overbearing DRM. The only way they're going to stop this is if it hurts sales.
No, if I buy it it means that I want to play the game. I don't give a crap about the whole 3-installs thing affecting second-hand sales, either. So you can't buy it second hand? Oh boo hoo. Couple of years in therapy, you'll get over it.

It's not just about not being able to buy it second hand, it's about not being able to play the game you paid full price for brand new after a few installs, not to mention the spyware crap they stick on your PC in the name of protecting their intellectual property.

[Captain Maxx Power]

No, if I buy it it means that I want to play the game. I don't give a crap about the whole 3-installs thing affecting second-hand sales, either. So you can't buy it second hand? Oh boo hoo. Couple of years in therapy, you'll get over it.

The whole point of commerce is that the value of items goes up or down depending on the worth and age of a product. By tacking on the DRM EA can artificially inflate the price of the game almost indefinitely. Also you have to keep in mind that not everyone is as privaleged as you to be able to pay full price for games. I myself haven't bought a game that's been priced over ten quid in the past few years simply because I can't afford to spend anymore. But I still like to play games and new games (I'm presently doing a degree in them). Everyone should have a right to the trade worth of a product, not have it perpetually artificially inflated.

You also don't seem to be thinking in the long run. Just recently I have started re-playing a lot of my older games that I've had for a number of years. How pissed off would I have been if I'd have gone to install these games which I paid for legitimately and found out that I couldn't play them any more?


Basically if you want to play a game, save up the amount that you feel is worth spending on it. I just happen to believe it's worth the £27 or so I spent on it, and was more than happy to spend that amount. I'd have spent more if it wasn't that cheap at the place I bought it from. It's a fairly unique game and I felt like something different. I'm also happy to encourage EA (by giving them my money) to keep financing this sort of innovation.

EA don't develop games, they publish them. If you really wanted to help out you'd give your money straight to the development houses. A lot of the money you're giving them in an attempt to help out is only going to line the pockets of someone not even remotely involved in the production of games. Plus the main reason why Spore came as far as it did was due to the involvement of Will Wright, a man who has a proven track record of producing high-selling games (Sim series primarily). I'd doubt EA would invest heavily in a notably different game simply because they thought it would be innovative. Like every other company they're out to make money, and the vast majority of the time they'll just go with what works and sells. That's why they have such a huge thumb in the Sport games pie, because these games regularly sell like clockwork every year.

Take it from someone who knows; EA is not a very nice organisation. They have a track record being as greedy as you can get, aggressively driving their competitors out-of-business and essentially wanting to make a monopoly on games publishing. It heartens me that their present plans of absorbing every development house going hasn't worked out, because I'd rather not have a single giant entity with full control over not only the games we play but also have the ability to observe and track us in order to make even more cash. It's all extremely sinister and morally objectionable, which is what we're all trying to explain to you.

[Yar]

I wish Maxis would stop distracting themselves with things like The Sims and Spore and just make a Sim City 5 already, pl0x. :mad2:

[Loony BoB]

The whole point of commerce is that the value of items goes up or down depending on the worth and age of a product. By tacking on the DRM EA can artificially inflate the price of the game almost indefinitely.
And if people continue to want to play it so much that they save up that amount so they can buy it, so be it. If you don't think something is worth the price attached to it you just don't buy it. It's pretty straight-forward, really.

Also you have to keep in mind that not everyone is as privaleged as you to be able to pay full price for games.
And for a long time, I couldn't either. Now I can. I worked hard to get there. I'm sure it would be all lovely and super if everything was cheap, but the fact is that's not the way things work. I am not privileged enough to be able to buy an HDTV right now, but that doesn't mean I will get all moody because the price is so high for something like that. If I don't feel it's worth saving up for then I won't save up for it. If I can't afford it at all, even if saving for a year, then I simply can't afford it and that's that. Tough. I deal with it.

I myself haven't bought a game that's been priced over ten quid in the past few years simply because I can't afford to spend anymore. But I still like to play games and new games (I'm presently doing a degree in them). Everyone should have a right to the trade worth of a product, not have it perpetually artificially inflated.
But it's not artificially inflated or anything like that. They simply forced out the second-hand business. I for one don't see this as such a big deal. Maybe I am paying for the 'rental' of three installs, but I also don't see this as such a big deal. Again, it's just a case of whether or not you think the money is worth what you get for it. I still think it's worth it. If they did this with a game I didn't want to play as much, I might not buy it for such reasons. If I re-installed games regularly then I wouldn't pay the amount. So you're paying for a "rental". Big whoop. Either you think it's worth it, or you don't. If EA are making more money by using this process then there is no reason for them to stop using it. If my money helps them not want to change, so be it. I just got a game and I could care less about the 'problems' associated with it, as I still think it's worth £27.


You also don't seem to be thinking in the long run. Just recently I have started re-playing a lot of my older games that I've had for a number of years. How pissed off would I have been if I'd have gone to install these games which I paid for legitimately and found out that I couldn't play them any more?
I don't know. How pissed off would you be? As for myself, I wouldn't be that pissed off. I'd have known that this was going to happen eventually and would shrug and carry on with life.

EA don't develop games, they publish them. If you really wanted to help out you'd give your money straight to the development houses. A lot of the money you're giving them in an attempt to help out is only going to line the pockets of someone not even remotely involved in the production of games.
Complain to Maxis about this, not EA. Maxis, as a seperate company from EA (as you point out) have every right to opt for a different publisher, but they don't. So basically even if you gave the developers a nice donation or something, that money is still going towards people who promote EA.

Plus the main reason why Spore came as far as it did was due to the involvement of Will Wright, a man who has a proven track record of producing high-selling games (Sim series primarily). I'd doubt EA would invest heavily in a notably different game simply because they thought it would be innovative. Like every other company they're out to make money, and the vast majority of the time they'll just go with what works and sells. That's why they have such a huge thumb in the Sport games pie, because these games regularly sell like clockwork every year.
Will Wright worked for a company that endorsed EA in some way, and therefore he is just as much at fault as anyone.

Take it from someone who knows; EA is not a very nice organisation. They have a track record being as greedy as you can get, aggressively driving their competitors out-of-business and essentially wanting to make a monopoly on games publishing.
I imagine the developer does have some say in who publishes their games, given they are making them. It would be kind of silly to think that EA are actually getting whatever they want - they only get the developers who choose EA. And therefore they are just as 'evil', surely?

It heartens me that their present plans of absorbing every development house going hasn't worked out, because I'd rather not have a single giant entity with full control over not only the games we play but also have the ability to observe and track us in order to make even more cash. It's all extremely sinister and morally objectionable, which is what we're all trying to explain to you.
It's not. It really isn't. The developers choose to go to EA. There will never be a monopoly as long as there is a choice - and there is.

[Roto13]

Bend over, Bob.

[Loony BoB]

Ooh, a penny!

[Old Manus]

*thrust*

[Yew-Yevon]

ROFL!

[smittenkitten]

I work in Game and they said they have never seen a game sell so well on pc! :eek:

[demondude]

I'd love this game, shame my PC isn't nearly powerful enough for it.

[Captain Maxx Power]

And if people continue to want to play it so much that they save up that amount so they can buy it, so be it. If you don't think something is worth the price attached to it you just don't buy it. It's pretty straight-forward, really.

We're deviating from the point here. This isn't about the price as it stands, it's about the price in the long term.


And for a long time, I couldn't either. Now I can. I worked hard to get there. I'm sure it would be all lovely and super if everything was cheap, but the fact is that's not the way things work. I am not privileged enough to be able to buy an HDTV right now, but that doesn't mean I will get all moody because the price is so high for something like that. If I don't feel it's worth saving up for then I won't save up for it. If I can't afford it at all, even if saving for a year, then I simply can't afford it and that's that. Tough. I deal with it.

It's not like we're talking about the most expensive of the expensive, they're just games.


But it's not artificially inflated or anything like that. They simply forced out the second-hand business.

Do you not see anything wrong with this statement?


I for one don't see this as such a big deal. Maybe I am paying for the 'rental' of three installs, but I also don't see this as such a big deal. Again, it's just a case of whether or not you think the money is worth what you get for it. I still think it's worth it. If they did this with a game I didn't want to play as much, I might not buy it for such reasons. If I re-installed games regularly then I wouldn't pay the amount. So you're paying for a "rental". Big whoop. Either you think it's worth it, or you don't. If EA are making more money by using this process then there is no reason for them to stop using it. If my money helps them not want to change, so be it. I just got a game and I could care less about the 'problems' associated with it, as I still think it's worth £27.

I wish you would move on from this idea about the worth of a game because it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to get at here. A game could be made from the golden butthairs of God-almighty itself it wouldn't matter. What matters here is the DRM that is attached to the game. Your passive nature to all of this gets my goat because A: This is an industry I want to work in and B: You're essentially saying you don't care just how shabbily you're treated by publishing companies. I'm beginning to wonder just how far you're prepared to tolerant this. What about when you have to pay for the game in full every year (a move they've talked about), or when you have to pay extra just to register the game so you can get it updated? If this needless intrusion into your gaming isn't enough to make you care then what the hell is?


I don't know. How pissed off would you be? As for myself, I wouldn't be that pissed off. I'd have known that this was going to happen eventually and would shrug and carry on with life.

Are you even listening to yourself right now? You're essentially taking the part of the complacent consumer to new heights. I'm amazed that you have an attitude that is this lousy in regards to where your money; I repeat that, your hard earned cash, is going. If you're just going to let this go then you may as well flush your money down the toilet because that's as good as it is in this situation.


Complain to Maxis about this, not EA. Maxis, as a seperate company from EA (as you point out) have every right to opt for a different publisher, but they don't. So basically even if you gave the developers a nice donation or something, that money is still going towards people who promote EA.

There is such a thing as contractual obligations. No matter how much money Maxis has made them attempting to separate from EA would cost them a lot. Considering the amount of money that would have been needed to make Spore, and that EA is probably the only company that could finance them in the long-term, going with EA wasn't really a choice.


Will Wright worked for a company that endorsed EA in some way, and therefore he is just as much at fault as anyone.

Will Wright doesn't design and implement the DRM on the game. Chances are the DRM is probably part of the contractual obligation as part of the publishing deal. EA could in theory do whatever they wanted with the storage medium that is used to distribute the game itself.


I imagine the developer does have some say in who publishes their games, given they are making them. It would be kind of silly to think that EA are actually getting whatever they want - they only get the developers who choose EA. And therefore they are just as 'evil', surely?

No, developers don't "choose" EA. They get bought out, pure and simple. It's a stockholders deal that means the people who actually make the games get no say in the matter. Quite often such deals are done between publishing houses. Plus individuals who work at companies often don't have a say themselves in the business transactions, they just work there. So it's difficult if nye on impossible to say every developer has a choice as to whether or not they become a part of EA, because they just don't.


It's not. It really isn't. The developers choose to go to EA. There will never be a monopoly as long as there is a choice - and there is.

No. They. Do. Not. This is a business matter, developing houses quite often can't do anything about it. Does the phrase "forceful takeover" mean anything to you?


*thrust*


Ooh, a penny!


Bend over, Bob.

See how that works? But this is an apt metaphor; you're literally being screwed over by EA and not only that but you're defending them and saying we're wrong in the process. If you don't want to do anything when you're being given a bum deal to say something against it then be it on your own head.

[Loony BoB]

Sometimes I pay £20 for a nice meal. The next day, I don't have that meal anymore. It's gone. But while I had it, it was nice, and I don't mind that I spent the £20 for it. I mean, I could have bought myself some food that would have lasted me for most of the week with £20, let alone a third of a day. But I spent it, and I spent it knowing what the downsides of it were, and I still wasn't bothered.

They have put out games that you pay for on a yearly basis - in fact, on a monthly basis. Online gaming is a ripoff as far as I'm concerned. £5 per month (and most charge you twice that, at least) is far more than £28 for three installs. I would rather people spent their time complaining to Square Enix and Blizzard than complaining to EA. These online games such as Final Fantasy XI are the ones I would love to try out for a long term period but they are the ones which I don't feel able to afford. So I guess there is a line which I'd draw it at, but other companies outside of EA are already screwing those customers in a far worse way, so I don't see the big issue.

I mean, I would prefer that my game lasted for unlimited installs, but I can live with the fact that this is not the case. This may seem like complacency to you, and maybe it is - but keep in mind that this problem doesn't affect me (I rarely reinstall games and it's extremely rare that I play a game for longer than a year, let alone longer than three months) and you'll see why I'm so indifferent to the whole thing.

Maybe something you don't know about me is that I'm a capitalist and therefore have no problems with the idea of a business, shock-horror, wanting to make more money!

If going with EA wasn't a choice, why do so many games out there not get published by EA? Halo, GTA, Final Fantasy, Mario - all these big names seem to manage without EA. I'm sure there are other choices. As for stockholders, again, why not those games? Couldn't EA buy them out? Surely? Or not - I guess there is a choice. See, I know of someone in my family who once had the decision to float their business on the stock market but declined. You have to be smart with these kind of things. Once you let your own company be taken out of your own hands, it's no longer your company. If it falls into the hands of EA, any person such as Will Wright is perfectly able to hand in his two week's notice and find another area. But he didn't. I'm sure he loved the money that EA fed hm.

Of course, if you want a summary of my opinion, it's that I don't care about the backroom politics of these companies. Everyone has their own salary and they can all leave if they want. They aren't using ten year old illegal immigrants to make these games against their will in exchange for a tiny amount of food, are they? So long as it's all legal and the people involved have every option to leave and find another job, I'll just go ahead and have my concience clean with buying from a company. As for the price, the only thing I care about is: Do I want to play the game enough to pay that price for what I'm going to get out of it? If I do, then I buy it. If I don't, I don't. I really don't see how anyone can really have a problem with that. It's called supply and demand, and no small protests will make a big business give up on an opportunity to rake in millions. That's business, and that's life.

I have no objection to anybody pirating material, though, either. What people do in their own time is their business, so long as they know the risks involved.

[Roto13]

If going with EA wasn't a choice, why do so many games out there not get published by EA? Halo, GTA, Final Fantasy, Mario - all these big names seem to manage without EA. I'm sure there are other choices. As for stockholders, again, why not those games? Couldn't EA buy them out? Surely?

I doubt EA could buy out Microsoft or Nintendo. Two companies that aren't going to publish Spore or anything else that isn't exclusive to their consoles. Also, they're trying to take over Take Two, who are responsible for GTA. There really aren't a lot of choices out there.

[Yeargdribble]

To hell with the potential for 2nd hands sales. I don't care about the fact that you don't mind paying full price for games (as I don't either).

What I do care about is being able to play the game I paid full price for WHEN I want to play it on ANY machine I want to play it on. I reformat my primary HD pretty often and my household has 4 computers between my wife and myself. I have to be very careful of where I install it because if I buy new hardware or format I may have forfeited the right to install the game on further systems.


I can only imagine if a game like Deus Ex had that type of BS on it. I've uninstalled and reinstalled that game at least a dozen times and more than half-a-dozen machines since I bought it so many years ago. It's a great game and to this day I feel like playing it occasionally. What if I just couldn't because I'd been limited to 3 installs? That's horse-crap and you know it.

Whether you care about piracy, 2nd hand marketing, full price or any other BS, you should care that you get to keep using a game you paid for.


If they want to kill piracy, this obviously didn't do it. The game has been pirated even by the honest. I'll probably torrent it just to have a 'full version' to supplement my full price, purchased copy so that if I run into a brick wall with installs I'll still be able to play.

If they want to kill 2nd hand markets they need to find a better way to do it. I have no solutions, but pissing on your primary customers isn't the way to do it.

[Loony BoB]

You have four computers between the two of you and you're complaining about having to pay for two games instead of one? Damn, man. Sell one of your PCs and buy an external USB hard drive. :p

[Yeargdribble]

Have 3 external HDs. I keep important stuff there so I don't clutter my primary with needless stuff. Whether I can afford to buy another copy isn't the issue. The issue is the fact that I can't get full use of the copy I paid for. I'm sure you'd be pissed if you bought a DVD instead of renting it through Netflix and it was only valid for 3 viewings. If you bought it you shouldn't be limited on its uses.

[Loony BoB]

That comparison is a bit off considering I can play through Spore three times and still play it again. Installs != Plays. However, if, say, a DVD could only be played on three DVD players (somehow) then it would make more sense. And personally I still wouldn't mind. xD As I said, so long as you KNOW about this 'issue' then you just need to weigh up whether or not it's worth the money (which is a personal decision each person can make) and pay depending on your decision.

I've said it before that I too would PREFER to have endless installs or whatever, but I'm not going to boycott a game over it and I don't give a crap if this makes me "part of the problem" because for me, it's not a problem.

[ShunNakamura]

Well I decided to give the game a shot. The Cell stage was a bit boring but I still had fun making my little guy.
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7432/progenisnd3.png

However, it keeps crashing when trying to load up the creature stage when I make my bigger guy. If I go through with a bare bones creation it works, but I guess my guy is too complex or something (it apparently did 'make' him, but it won't load the stage).
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/7338/progenisvc7.png

So first impression, game is buggy as can be. I wouldn't mind if it popped up a box saying it is too complex, however, crashing to the desktop with an error is just bad.

That and the first level could probably have been made quite a bit more entertaining with a bit of work.


So thus far I see it as a good inspiration with a flawed implementation. I may like the game more if I can ever get a creature I like to load into the creature phase.

[Loony BoB]

I imagine this is more to do with your PC than the game, as my game has had no trouble loading any kind of creature. What are your PC specs and what is your OS? Do you have the latest driver for your graphics card?

[Roto13]

As I said, so long as you KNOW about this 'issue' then you just need to weigh up whether or not it's worth the money (which is a personal decision each person can make) and pay depending on your decision.

Is this particular feature (as well as the other more invasive DRM crap that comes with the game) advertised on the back of the box or something?

[bipper]

I have been playing this for years. I just grab left overs and throw them in the back of the fridge. You should see my creations.

[ShunNakamura]

I imagine this is more to do with your PC than the game, as my game has had no trouble loading any kind of creature. What are your PC specs and what is your OS? Do you have the latest driver for your graphics card?

I have the latest drivers. My ATI card while not new can handle HD Video just fine(it is a 512 mb card). I have 2 gigs of ram. Really the only component in my computer that is weak is my 1.8 GHz processor.

My ATI isn't the best(it relies too much on the CPU to do stuff), however, other than the crash at creature stage(which pops up on gamefaqs and other message boards a lot, and even an EA rep said to make the creature less complex) my computer handles it just fine.

But I am far from the only one with said problem. It popped up all over the gamefaqs board(as well as others), that when starting the creature stage complex creatures can crash the game(instead they recommend waiting until after the cinematic scene because once you are in the stage the complexity doesn't matter). Thus, I was able to make my guy by just adding legs the first time, and then editing him once I was officially in the stage.



@Roto, I suppose not because I have read that some who pre-ordered ended up 'returning' their copy because they found out it had spyware/malware/whatever on it too late. That and I if I recall right a EA rep said they don't say it on the box because it isn't 'necessary' or some such.

[nik0tine]

I will not purchase this game because of what I have read about the DRM restrictions. I may pirate it someday, but so far it seems like it's turning out to be something of a disappointment.

[Roto13]

Apparently EA is releasing a patch that will let you get one of your install credits back when you uninstall from a computer. That's a good start, but I still don't like the rest of the crap it installs on your computer. Still, it's good to know they're doing something about it.

EDIT: Yahtzee gave his review today. :P (I'm not linking to it because there's a penis that isn't censored enough.)

[ShunNakamura]

Well I suppose that is one step in the right direction. But if I recall don't you have to be online for it to re-credit your install? That and you have to 'uninstall' it not lose it due to computer format(annoying and highly inconveniencing to me... thank God that I don't have to manually uninstall EVERYTHING on my computer.... that would be a couple hours right there(even if I wrote a script for it, it would still take at least a couple hours of removing time)).



And my first impression still stands. Apparently the collision mechanics weren't worked out in the best possible way which can cause some really weird things to occur. And Tribal mode and higher really lack in creative freedom. Thus, the creature stage is the best in my opinion(plentiful rotating, resizing, etc).


Basically it suffers from the same thing that Visual Novel RPG type games tend to suffer from. It ends up being a mediocre or worse in both types. This offers a wide variety of game styles but individual they are not much more than mediocre.

[Yeargdribble]

I'm now having the problem with loading tribal stage on my wife's PC. He computer is fine to run the game. 3 Ghz processor, 3 gigs of RAM, a plethora of free HD space, and a Radeon 7900 with up-to-date drivers.

From looking around the internet this is a very common problem and people just waiting for the patch.

[ShunNakamura]

Any of you kill one of those Epic Creatures during the creature stage? I had a very annoying flying one(5 jump and 5 glide). It thankfully only had level 1 bite as an attack(it was apparently a social monster that epicified). However, that level one bite still came just a tinsy bit close to one hitting me(and it did one hit my pack mates). Even with two rogues as my pack mates I still can barely hurt the thing(I have level 5 spit and level 5 charge level five strike, but only level 1 bite, I am a herbi, what do you expect).

Ah, well, I can't take it head on, that much is obvious, however, the dumb thing doesn't get stunned from charge(talk about annoying) and it is fast enough that I can't do the spit and run tactic. Of course it doesn't help that the AI in this game is..... well in this case AI stands for Artificial Idiocy.



Anyways I am just wondering because I have heard you can do it, it just is a trick and half to do so.

[Værn]

Any of you kill one of those Epic Creatures during the creature stage? I had a very annoying flying one(5 jump and 5 glide). It thankfully only had level 1 bite as an attack(it was apparently a social monster that epicified). However, that level one bite still came just a tinsy bit close to one hitting me(and it did one hit my pack mates). Even with two rogues as my pack mates I still can barely hurt the thing(I have level 5 spit and level 5 charge level five strike, but only level 1 bite, I am a herbi, what do you expect).

Ah, well, I can't take it head on, that much is obvious, however, the dumb thing doesn't get stunned from charge(talk about annoying) and it is fast enough that I can't do the spit and run tactic. Of course it doesn't help that the AI in this game is..... well in this case AI stands for Artificial Idiocy.



Anyways I am just wondering because I have heard you can do it, it just is a trick and half to do so.

I got him down to about 700-750 while I was playing on a friend's computer the other day by spitting. He said that he nearly managed to kill it off by charging and running.

[Tasura]

In theory, it is possible to kill one, since there is an Achievement for it.

[Loony BoB]

I think I did, yeah.

[Nominus Experse]

This game is enjoyable, but only so if...

You are quite creative (you create and enhance everything)
Aren't bothered by repetition
Did not begin playing the game expecting to be blown away
You play it instead of trying to conquer it
You are able to forgive the odd, lingering bugs (my creature killed an epic and then was thrown into a white space that I could not get out of; some of the path-finding is, well, bad; and other oddities that don't really impose themselves too heavily on your experience, but rather make it sometimes annoying...)

EDIT: Yes, you can kill an Epic. The best method I discovered was to ally with all of the Rogue creatures, Charge from a long distance (thus causing all of your allies to perform the same move and also covers a lot of ground quickly), make a few strikes, flee, repeat. The process took around 40 minutes in all, and required that I nor any of my allies perished since the Epic will likely be carnivorous and consume their bodies, thus replenishing its health.

Another method is to find a vantage point such as a steep cliff/slope, climb it, and simply spit upon the Epic. However, this requires that you do it by yourself, the Epic may also have Spit, takes forever, and requires that there be such a place you can lure the Epic.

[Loony BoB]

I don't know about you guys but I killed about four Epics on creature stage. Just wait 'til the end when you have all the possible DNA feature-type things and you should be able to kill them for fun, provided you have a bunch of your creatures alongside you and have decent health/attack etc.

[Nominus Experse]

I don't know about you guys but I killed about four Epics on creature stage. Just wait 'til the end when you have all the possible DNA feature-type things and you should be able to kill them for fun, provided you have a bunch of your creatures alongside you and have decent health/attack etc.

How? All the epics I've fought had at least 4000 health and their attacks took off around 60 health with each strike... With only around 130 Health, it doesn't take long to perish.

However, I've only played omnivores and herbivores, and have always made them small in size. I am now wondering if size and the nature of your creature effects their health...

[Loony BoB]

It's only natural that a carnivore will deal the most damage to them considering it's not every day that you see a giraffe kill a lion.

[Nominus Experse]

It's only natural that a carnivore will deal the most damage to them considering it's not every day that you see a giraffe kill a lion.
Well said: it seems so obvious now...

I want to see a giraffe kill a lion now that I think about it...