Earlier this month, the video game maker Electronic Arts ("EA") released the much anticipated "Spore" video game in the UK, but was promptly attacked by thousands of Spore fans on Amazon.com who found that their private use of the game was substantially curtailed by EA's copyright restrictions in the game software.
"Spore" is a creation of Mr Will Wright, the designer of the successful "The Sims" video games. Spore's unique selling point is that it allows players to use tools to help the evolution of their creations from mere microscopic organisms to intelligent and social life forms which can then master their surroundings and travel through space, constantly evolving at every venture.
However, for many Spore enthusiasts, the nurture of that evolution was squashed by the Digital Rights Management system employed by EA which restricted the number of times the game could be installed on personal computers. An EA spokesman commented earlier this month that its system "works just like online music services that limit the number of machines on which you can play a song" and that system "is an effort to control piracy".
The current position in the saga is that EA has relaxed the copyright protection for Spore and the user restriction has been raised from three to five computers which EA believes ought to account for all legitimate uses. See the online BBC report earlier this week: EA also plans to allow five screen (or user) names per copy of the game in the future. These moves ought to now appease the avid Spore game player.
The Spore saga has certainly demonstrated the market considerations that a games manufacturer needs to take into account when balancing the need to combat piracy and protect copyright with the reasonable consumer's realistic expectations about the product.
The balance will no doubt be dictated by how far a games manufacturer can commercially exploit its product through copyright protection without drawing in complaints that would ultimately serve to damage the repute of the product.
Comments