The Spore controversy continues as Electronic Arts' Mariam Sughayer has been talking to MTV and responding to the biggest complaints that people have with the game's "anti-piracy" measures. It would seem that, while EA refuses to back down on many of the issues, there is at least the suggestion that Spore's three computer install limit is changing.
That will be changed, according to the EA spokesperson, who told Multiplayer that the current limit on the number of computers that can be associated with a single copy of "Spore" is "very similar to a solution that iTunes has. The difference is that with iTunes you can de-authorize a computer [that you no longer want associated with your iTunes content]. Right now, with our solution, you can't. But there is a patch coming for that." The official timeframe for that patch is "near future."
EA also responded to fears that SecuROM installs Spyware by stating, obviously, that it doesn't. The spokesperson was also quick to point out that it found a virus in a torrent of its game, and assured customers that the only way to guarantee a Malware-free Spore was to buy it. In answer to the question regarding multiple accounts per copy, EA only reiterated that the manual section stating you could do this is a misprint. The company did not comment on the very real issue of families not being able to create their own accounts without each buying a whole new copy of the game.
The company rep also had this to say regarding the current authentication process which runs every time the player accesses the online features:
If we were to ever turn off the servers on the game [making authentication impossible] we would put through a patch before that to basically make the DRM null and void. We’re never walking away from the game and making it into a situation where people aren’t going to be able to play it.
Well, there you go. Frankly, I'm not too sure that's good enough. To me, the worst part of this whole DRM nonsense was the restriction of one account per copy, and that's something EA is refusing to address. Perhaps because it's the most transparently greedy part of the whole thing? Who knows?