Celebrating employer excellence in the video games industry

8th July 2021

Submit your company

Amazon users slam Spore DRM

Consumer reviews overwhelmingly negative due to "draconian" DRM

Will Wright's latest game, Spore, has been receiving negative reviews on Amazon from fans whose only complaint is with the SecuROM DRM system installed with the game.

According to consumers, SecuROM limits the purchaser to a maximum number of three installations before requiring the owner to contact EA and request more codes.

Over one hundred users have only awarded the game one star on the site's Customer Reviews pages, although many admit the title is a great game from the legendary The Sims designer.

"I came to Amazon to buy it, but clearly the DRM is repulsive and malware in nature. I will not buy it," wrote on reviewer.

"I'm very disappointed that EA has chosen to treat us all like criminals," stated another.

The game went on sale last Friday in Europe, but as one reviewer noted, the anti-piracy measures may have a limited effect, as the highly-anticipated title had been leaked on torrent sites days before the official release.

"Fantastic game, gets 1 star because of DRM. It was pointless anyway, since the game was leaked 4 days before the release date."

Celebrating employer excellence in the video games industry

8th July 2021

Submit your company

More stories

EA leans on Apex Legends and live services in fourth quarter

Q4 and full year revenues close to flat and profits take a tumble, but publisher's bookings still up double-digits

By Brendan Sinclair

EA acquires Super Mega Baseball developer Metalhead Software

Canadian studio fills another gap in FIFA publisher's expanding sports portfolio

By James Batchelor

Latest comments (1)

Christian Olsson VP Marketing & Alliances, ByteShield, Inc.12 years ago
This is a terrible story for 2 parties - legitimate users who simply wanted to play Spore and couldn't because the activation servers went down and EA because Spore was cracked even before it was released.

Often developers walk a tightrope with the trade off between protection strength and the degree of impact on legitimate users but this was a failure
on both dimensions! Is this really what the publisher wants to 'accomplish'? Why not use a solution which is friendly to honest users, has no impact on development time and the strongest available protection against crackers - see our whitepaper

Christian Olsson
ByteShield, Inc.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.