Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spore System Specs Released, Creature Creator Coming Soon

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the so-much-waiting dept.

Games 125

Will Wright's long-awaited game, Spore, seems to be nearing completion, with a release slated for September. In anticipation of this release, EA has outlined the system requirements and will still be releasing their Creature Creator demo for experimentation on June 17th.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't Try To Make Humans... (5, Insightful)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755901)

... they just consume all your computer's resources.

Re:Don't Try To Make Humans... (2, Funny)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755979)

Kind of like Vista in that respect.

Re:Don't Try To Make Humans... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23756205)

Last night I met a dude while out glory holing. He was early 20s, skinny, seemed pretty inexperienced. We ended up at a bar.

Anyway, after about 2-3 hours of drinking he finally got up the courage to admit to he liked cock, and we went back to my place to fuck.

We make out at the front door for about a minute or two, drunkenly stumble in, throw clothes everywhere, and he pushes me on the bed, gives me one more peck on the lips, then goes down on me...skipping past my penis, and totally ignoring the balls...and starts feasting on my butt buffet. Seriously, I don't think a colonic would have cleaned my ass any better than his tongue did. I am not complaining, he was a fucking expert, jacking me off at the same time and working his tongue around like my dog when I shoved peanut butter up my ass. Of course, all I could think about was how many guys he's done this to before if he's so eager to do it to me, but whatever.

This morning, I roll him over for morning sex, and when we are done, I jokingly call him "poop lips." He doesn't understand why.

Malda: "Uhhhhhh...are you the same dude as last night?"

Poop lips "Of course I am the same guy, wtf!" (yeah, he said double-tee-eff)

Malda "Do you not remember licking my ass like it was a Tootsie Pop?"

Poop lips "OH MY GOD I DID NOT!"

Of course you didn't. After all, if you "don't remember" it, than it didn't happen, right?

Re:Don't Try To Make Humans... (3, Funny)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23764051)

Actually Vista is a result of early Spore beta testing... they put Windows ME in to the game and ran it in simulation mode for 7 years... Vista is what came out, though apparently there were several variations (Home, Professional, Business, Ultimate)

I did not know this was news. (1)

kevmatic (1133523) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755923)

I saw the system specs on EA's preorder site, http://eastore.ea.com/store/ea/DisplayProductDetailsPage/ProductID.91619200 [ea.com] , Monday. I thought I had merely missed them...

Does Knowing this before everyone else make me cool?

Anywho, they don't look as bad as I was thinking, and the fact that it supports onboard video with a dual-core CPU raises interesting questions about the engine.

Re:I did not know this was news. (2, Informative)

allanw (842185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755945)

Anywho, they don't look as bad as I was thinking, and the fact that it supports onboard video with a dual-core CPU raises interesting questions about the engine.
It just means that the graphic engine goes from very low graphics to possibly high graphics.

Re:I did not know this was news. (2, Insightful)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756097)

onboard video with a dual-core CPU
The original Intel Mac Mini is the only single core Intel Mac. Since it did not have sufficient graphics to run this game, there are no single core Macs capable of running spore.

Re:I did not know this was news. (5, Funny)

howlingfrog (211151) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759583)

Does knowing this before everyone else make me cool?

This is Slashdot. We're geeks. That's how we define cool.

Re:I did not know this was news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23762573)

It's not.

Vaporware (-1, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755953)

Spore will never come out.
If a game comes out with the title "Spore" it will be no where close to what we've been promised.

Also - Windows install requires 6 GB, Mac install requires 4.7 GB. Pretty big difference.

Re:Vaporware (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756021)

the only difference I can think of is DirectX vs OpenGL. anyone know of the reason behind this?

Re:Vaporware (0, Offtopic)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757627)

In fact, I challenge you! I don't think I can be sent tons of obscene pornography! Prove me wrong!

Re:Vaporware (1)

Slashdot Suxxors (1207082) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756073)

Not really. In this day and age where 1TB HD's starting to become quite common, a gig and a half is nothing.

Re:Vaporware (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765337)

The PC install is about 27.6% larger than the Mac install...

Re:Vaporware (1)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757177)

Where do people get this vaporware crap from? Games with development times of five years or so are far from uncommon. Duke Nukem Forever and TF2 both deserved the title. So why do so many people mistakenly apply it to Spore?

Re:Vaporware (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#23758141)

So why do so many people mistakenly apply it to Spore?

Because Spore was originally slated to be released in late 2006.

Re:Vaporware (1)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#23758875)

Yeah, a two year delay, bringing the dev time up to 5 years. Which makes it heavily delayed and nowhere near the level of vaporware.

meh (5, Funny)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23755957)

Ever since he mentioned that you don't need to start at the beginning in order to get to a certain stage, i've just felt like it will be a bunch of mini-games, without present decisions being made in the current stage affecting your options in future stages of, what i assume, is the evolution of your creature(s). I have a feeling that the expansion pack he's been working on [penny-arcade.com] will be a ton better.

Not necessarily (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#23760999)

Ever since he mentioned that you don't need to start at the beginning in order to get to a certain stage, i've just felt like it will be a bunch of mini-games, without present decisions being made in the current stage affecting your options in future stages of, what i assume, is the evolution of your creature(s).


Not necessarily. It can just mean you have a bunch of predefined choices at each step. It doesn't mean you can't do better.

I mean, look at, say, Paradox's games. Different genre, I know, but they do illustrate the point nevertheless.

You can start Hearts Of Iron in 1941 and get directly to attacking the USSR, or being attacked if you play the USSR. In which case you'll start from the historical situation in 1941. But you can also start in 1936, build up your economy, and build up teh uber-Wehrmacht or Red Army, and deliver some serious smack down when 1941 comes. Or play a USA which didn't wait around for Pearl Harbour to start thinking about war, and is in much better shape to deliver a devastating punch when that happens. Play a France which picked different doctrines and built up its army, and can hold its own at the Maginot Line. Etc.

Essentially having the option to skip to 1941, doesn't make the 1936 option meaningless. You can and _do_ affect your options in the future by starting earlier.

Ditto in any other of their games. You can skip to the 1600's in EU2 and get to colonizing America, or even directly at the Napoleonic wars, or start in 1419 as an England bogged down in the 100 year war and work your way from there.

Heck, IIRC you can even export your world from one game to the next, and play it as one uber-campaign spanning 1000 years. You can start in Crusader Kings, export to EU2 when you reach the 1400's, export to Victoria in early 1800's, and (if you have the expansion pack) export to Hearts Of Iron when you reach the 1930's. The option to start directly with Hearts Of Iron doesn't make the previous stages meaningless minigames. Starting at CK can _massively_ affect your options later. You can end up in EU2 with a Byzantine Empire that regained the former lands of the Roman Empire and has the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum (our sea), instead of being a one-province victim of the Turks. Colonize, get to Victoria with it, and you can try to out-industrialize the English. Make Byzantium _the_ industrial and cultural capital of the world, like in the old days, and the empire over whose flag the sun never sets. Etc.

You can still ask, "why?" because it gets so ahistorical that it's not even funny. Still, the principle remains. And as Spore isn't a historical game, even that objection vanishes.

9.99 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23756015)

Okay, who's going to pay $9.99 for the Character Creator for game that, for all we know, could be vaporware?

Re:9.99 (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 6 years ago | (#23762653)

> game that, for all we know, could be vaporware?

2007 called. They're asking that you get with the times. 2006 was shouting at you in the background.

Quite low (4, Informative)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756071)

pixel shader 2.0 == directX 9 == 128MB video cards from 2003
I suppose this is due to the long development. Hopefully the creative gameplay will overcome the lack of shiny and high res texture graphics. :)

Re:Quite low (5, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756141)

HL2 Episode 2 only required a DX7 video card, and recommended a DX9 one. I wouldn't exactly call that game lacking shiny and high res textures.

Re:Quite low (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756449)

Yeah, after I posted that I realized I was being a bit dismissive. I guess the rate of advance has actually slowed a bit and 5 year old cards are not so terribly different from more recent cards. I upgraded from a 6 year old 128MB nvidia ti4200 just last year myself to play Oblivion at high settings and mods that increase texture resolutions. :)

Re:Quite low (1)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757045)

I don't think you being dismissive is exactly bad. There's a huge difference between those DX9 cards and the more recent ones. DX10 cards are actually a huge leap. The low end ones probably blow the low-end DX9 cards out of the water.

I have never actually tested that myself (low end to low end), but I did go from a high end DX9 card to a high end DX10 card. My jaw dropped at the FPS increase alone. Massive.

Re:Quite low (3, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757785)

I guess the rate of advance has actually slowed a bit and 5 year old cards are not so terribly different from more recent cards
 
This is where I post This post [slashdot.org] and get modded +5 interesting yet again. People keep forgetting relatively new games like Team Fortress 2 will run on five year old hardware (With the settings turned down a bit) running on Windows ME. A $600 "gaming rig" will play any game out there at 1280x1024 at 30fps with all the settings set to high. Why so cheap? Because not a whole lot has changed since the bleeding edge technology of 2003. We've gotten PCI-e and SATA cables.... that's about it. Innovate or slash prices.

Re:Quite low (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756927)

HL2 textures had low poly count and were generally easy to render. The game looked good because the texture artwork looked good. It's the ultimate efficiency hack.

Re:Quite low (2, Informative)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756973)

I think you meant the models have low polygon counts. Textures are what go on the models. And yes, the textures made the difference. While the polygon counts were up there, they weren't as bad Doom 3 (released around the same time, I believe) and the textures made it all look just that much better.

Re:Quite low (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757413)

Ya ya, and they reversed the polarity of the neutron flux, too. My point was, even for it's time HL2 was quite easy to run at high settings, unlike the content-free flop that was Doom3. You can't judge a game by how hard it is to run.

Re:Quite low (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23760013)

I'm pretty sure Half-Life 2 has higher polygon counts than Doom 3, the latter just has shaders that eat sick amounts of performance. Doom 3 uses way fewer polygons than even games that came before it, roughly 1.5k per character when Unreal 2 was already doing 3-5k.

Re:Quite low (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757461)

I'm perfectly fine with developers doing the homework and trying to make good looking game by all possible means, not just relying mostly on bling of latest GPUs...

(@importance of textures: http://forums.galciv2.com/310173 [galciv2.com]
section "The Updated Graphics", also:
http://forums.galciv2.com/167995 [galciv2.com]
I couldn't find the post in which they describe how they did it, so: each race has one, detailed, "ships texture", parts of which are used by all ships of given race; apparently it also means only one copy has to kept in memory = massive reduction of usage)

Re:Quite low (1)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759727)

How many polygons were there in the textures again? :-P

Re:Quite low (1)

lusiphur69 (455824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23761683)

Um..textures don't have low poly count - those are models - textures have low fidelity aka resolution.

Re:Quite low (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 6 years ago | (#23762131)

It's a trap!

Re:Quite low (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23764099)

HL2 textures had low poly count and were generally easy to render. The game looked good because the texture artwork looked good. It's the ultimate efficiency hack.

Wow, the game looked good because it actually used high-quality artwork instead of fancy video card tricks? I didn't think that was still allowed in games!

Re:Quite low (2, Insightful)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757719)

Agreed, is this Nvidia/ATI shenanigans or is there some reason that pixel shader 2.0 can't be done in software...

Spore doesn't seem likely to need uber framerates...

Re:Quite low (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759299)

Good: It might almost be playable on today's top-of-the-line laptops.

Re:Quite low (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759971)

If The Sims required a high-end graphics card it wouldn't have been nearly as successful, I guess they want to repeat that with Spore. Most people who have a casual interest in games and might want to see something like The Sims because it seems interesting have a fairly old or cheap PC.

Shader model 2. (1)

atezun (755568) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756083)

Well, my machine will run it.

*Dances happy dance and begins to prepare letters of absence*

Re:Shader model 2. (4, Funny)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756161)

Mine will not.

Why, yes, I do cry into my pillow every night...

Re:Shader model 2. (4, Funny)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 6 years ago | (#23758137)

"Why, yes, I do cry into my pillow every night..."

That's better than bitting into your pillow every night, I guess.

Re:Shader model 2. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23759867)

Hmm, that comment pair with your sig makes me think you a very mean man.

Modest specs -- pretty much what you'd expect (4, Informative)

merreborn (853723) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756143)

I built a machine 6 months ago for about $400 that should work acceptably, according to these specs -- a $100 asus mobo, $100 for an old geforce 7600, $50 for the cheapest AMD dual-core proc, and $50 for 2 gig of ram.

Glad to see they took the time to make sure Spore will run on low end PCs.

Re:Modest specs -- pretty much what you'd expect (2, Interesting)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757465)

I built mine around August for about $1300. A GeForce 8800 GTX, an Intel Core 2 Quad, and 2 gigs of dual channel DDR2 1066 RAM ranked among the fancier pieces. I had assumed Spore would require a beefy CPU to run, as I also foresaw a general move in gaming towards focus on multicore machines. Oyi, did I ever guess wrong!

I mean sure, Oblivion flies, I'm all set for future Source-based games, and Crysis runs like a dream but at what cost? AT WHAT COST!?! Oh right, $1300. At any rate, it certainly seems I was wrong in my prediction of what direction things are going; more and more I see games come out with surprisingly low recommended specs. Sure Valve's Source engine, Crytek's CryEngine 2, and (soon too) ID Tech 5, all support multicore CPUs, but I'm not seeing the games really making them essential.

Cost per player? (0, Flamebait)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765683)

and Crysis runs like a dream but at what cost? AT WHAT COST!?! Oh right, $1300.
But most multiplayer PC games require one PC per player. How much would it cost to upgrade the PCs used by the other members of your household?

Re:Modest specs -- pretty much what you'd expect (2, Insightful)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757659)

By taking so long to develop the game that piece took care of itself. It's like if you wanted to run Duke Nukem Forever, back when they announced it, it would only run on what was basically a supercomputer. Not the case anymore.

768MB RAM on Vista?? (0, Flamebait)

Grave (8234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756195)

Did they even *test* the game before putting that number out? I refuse to believe it is playable with so little ram on Vista. Let me rephrase. I'm sure it's possible to load up the game with only 768MB, but you wouldn't actually want to play it like that. You wouldn't even want to play Freecell on Vista like that.

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23756653)

You can say the same with XP at 512 or OSX at 1 gb. Wonder why you omit them? Less likely to get free mod-points I guess.

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (1)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23760085)

I remember running WoW fine on an XP laptop with 512MB RAM.

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23762739)

No, you really can't. I've never had a problem playing fairly advanced 3D games on an XP computer with 512mb RAM.

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (1)

mqduck (232646) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756791)

Will Wright has explicitly stated that they tried for lower system specs so people won't need to upgrade their machine. And now people say they're lying when they announce low system requirements.

They said Visa users needs significantly more RAM than XP users. In other words, they recognized the very point of your criticism and adjusted for it.

Everybody here already knows Vista sucks. We don't need to hear it again at any flimsy opportunity.

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (2, Funny)

ikono (1180291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759201)

Yeah. Mastercard is MUCH better.

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (1)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757239)

I've played Oblivion and Half-Life 2 Episode 2 on Vista with 1 gig of RAM. You don't know what you're talking about.

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (3, Funny)

krelian (525362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757605)

Apparently, on Linux even 4GB of RAM won't make it playable.

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23758311)

huh? Pardon me for being rather confused, but what on earth are you babbling about?

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 6 years ago | (#23762729)

There is no Linux version. So no amount of RAM will make is "playable". IOW, "able to be played".

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23758963)

You're talking about that it does not come ported for Linux? Spore could be nice on wine with that requirements. It's just a guess

Re:768MB RAM on Vista?? (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763145)

Well with EA releasing it, that means mac support will be though cider which is basically a cedega wrapper for mac.

I'd bet that this will run just as well on linux via cedega/wine as it does on mac.

start flaming (1)

athdemo (1153305) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756395)

RAM requirements: XP: 512mb Vista: 768mb OSX: 1gb

Re:start flaming (1)

atezun (755568) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756463)

Doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Macs "LOVE" RAM in my experience.

Re:start flaming (4, Funny)

VRisaMetaphor (87720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756929)

In soviet Russia, RAM loves EWE!

Re:start flaming (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 6 years ago | (#23762751)

It's been a LOOOOOONG time since I laughed out loud at a Soviet Russia joke. Well played, sir.

Re:start flaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23757775)

Why did you put LOVE in quotation marks? Do Macs actually hate RAM?

Re:start flaming (1)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23758229)

No, they just love being ironic.

Re:start flaming (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23764905)

Doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
...That's what she said.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23757395)

Testing with variations of RAM between 512MB and 1GB on a Mac would be an absolutely useless waste of time.

Intel Macs were either sold as one configuration or the other. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think any Core 2 Duo systems were even sold with less than a gig of RAM.

Re:Why? (1)

xperimental (552918) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757655)

Actually, the base model C2D MacBook only had 512 MB when it was first released.

Re:Why? (1)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759615)

It also doesn't meet the graphics requirement, which specifically says GMA X3100.

Re:start flaming (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757515)

Notice how every Mac comes with a gigabyte of RAM. In my experience giving a Mac more memory always increases performance, even if Activity Monitor says you aren't fully using the RAM you had before upgrading.

Missing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23756507)

They left off what version of Wine will be needed...

*ducks*

Some actual Spore news... (5, Informative)

Bwana Geek (1033040) | more than 6 years ago | (#23756671)

Not mentioned in the article or summary is the much more interesting news that the Sporepedia [spore.com] is live. Go check out some of the creatures that the Maxis team has created. Some of them are quite different from those I've seen in previous media.

Re:Some actual Spore news... (5, Interesting)

jthill (303417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23758517)

So I go check it out, and I see this:

How do you see one of these Creatures in your Spore Creature Creator? Right Click on the thumbnail image of the creature. Save the image to your desktop. Drag the saved image from your desktop into the Spore Creature Creator. Voila! The Creature is in your game.

Whoever thought that up deserves a few moments of quiet respect.

Re:Some actual Spore news... (5, Informative)

biovoid (785377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759265)

Very cool. The creature data is encoded as binary in the alpha channel of the PNG. That means any creature can be defined in under 2KB.

Re:Some actual Spore news... (1)

revengebomber (1080189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23760789)

It appears as though alpha values of 255 and 254 are used. GIMP time! Decompose, threshold. Link [imageshack.us]

I think its the best AI technique -- cheating (0, Flamebait)

patio11 (857072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759659)

You might think that this would take ungodly amounts of image recognition technology. And that is true, for the general case of "Import any image into Spore". But given that you have procedural creature generation, all you have to do is ship the Creature Creator with as many critters as you want to be discoverable (cheap to you: its just a list of parameters), give them all a unique ID, and then make sure your website serves up thumbnails with the ID embedded in the filename. The ID essentially serves as an unlock code for content which was already on the CD/download/etc.

(Alternatively, for extra robustness, you write the ID in the thumbnail somewhere -- there is plenty of dead space in the PNG specification.)

Then the user sees the import process work and is like "Wowza, you could read in pictures!" All of the joy of implementing a full scanning engine, none of the work.

Re:I think its the best AI technique -- cheating (3, Informative)

biovoid (785377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759985)

The creature data is encoded as binary in the alpha channel of the PNG. 2KB of compressed data. Simple but effective.

After hearing about.. (2, Interesting)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757137)

After hearing about the copy-protection scheme announced earlier last month- I'm not interested in buying. No way am I connecting every other week to prove I purchased this game.

Re:After hearing about.. (3, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757539)

They apparently caved to the public outcry (EA listening to its customers? No wai!!) and have scaled back their copy-protection scheme. Now it will require verification when you first install the game as well as anytime you use it to retrieve online content (creatures, patches, etc.).

Re:After hearing about.. (4, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 6 years ago | (#23762195)

Assuming it's the same securom restriction as mass effect (and previously bioshock) - which it's been said it will be - you'll get 3 install activation 'credits', which must be done online. Uninstalling/reinstalling on the same computer and the same copy of windows will re-use the activation already made, as of course will having your activation checked when you retrieve more creatures.

Reinstalling windows on your pc, or upgrading hardware will then cost you another of your three activations.

Once you've hit the limit, you'll need to phone EA tech support - a premium rate phone call in my country - and request permission to install your game, most likely then having to provide proof of purchase. Permission is granted on a case-by-case basis, and not guaranteed.

They caved only insomuch as providing a more restrictive limitation than bioshock, rather than a more restrictive limit than bioshock plus constant 10 day online activation.

It's not a purchase. It's a rental. I for one have cancelled my pre-order.

Mod Parent Up (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763317)

arkhan_ig hit it right on the nose. It's a rental, not a purchase. I'll stick to buying games with a reasonable DRM policy. [wikipedia.org]

Re:After hearing about.. (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757679)

I believe EA has backed off slightly after the outcry over that scheme. I believe now they check upon initial installation and whenever new content is downloaded.

Which is still pretty obscene, since downloading new content is one of the main features of the game. Your point still stands, I agree with it, and won't be buying this for the pc.

These registration schemes, along with constantly increasing requirements, are killing pc gaming.

Re:After hearing about.. (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 6 years ago | (#23758593)

While I would normally agree with you on the copyright schemes and such, but with it being available to so many systems at launch...what's the big deal about popping your CD in the tray?

Seriously, if you are going to buy it for console, that's what you have to do to play it anyway. How is this any worse on a PC?

Don't get me wrong, I can be as lazy as any other PC gamer and I hate having to pop in a CD just to have it run it's verification check, but if I had this game on a PS3 or X-box, I still have to put the stupid thing in the machine anyway.

Re:After hearing about.. (2, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759225)

what's the big deal about popping your CD in the tray?

My laptop doesn't have an optical drive, you insensitive clod!

And no, I'm not joking: I install software by pulling the optical drive out of my girlfriend's desktop and hooking an IDE->USB converter to it, but there's no way in Hell I'm going to do that on a regular basis!

Re:After hearing about.. (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23765007)

Yeah... getting an external USB DVD Drive is *so* expensive... I'm not sure how I was able to buy one for my wife... oh, wait, maybe I just spent $50 at newegg [newegg.com] .

Re:After hearing about.. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23760065)

I don't think checking if your key is valid every time you go online with the game is that uncommon, it's rarely broken and gives an incentive for buying the game over pirating it. Other games lock you out of multiplayer, Spore would lock you out of the other web features.

Re:After hearing about.. (1)

Woy (606550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23761807)

"A is killing pc gaming"
"B is killing pc gaming"
"C is killing pc gaming"

Meanwhile pc gamers play. I have been playing for a while, and i have 2 comments on this:

- All interesting and innovative stuff is coming out on PC. While this is the reality, every other platform is more likely to die than the PC. I am talking dwarffortress-class innovation, NOT better graphics.
- The massive population of console users is mostly unexperienced gamers that will in time get bored of the limitations of consoles in both input and variety of games. Half of them will end up pc gamers.

Re:After hearing about.. (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763195)

Copy protection killed MY pc gaming. I said screw it and stopped buying games. It wasn't worth the hassle.

Now I just play console games on my 50 inch tv.

Re:After hearing about.. (1)

Digital_Quartz (75366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763861)

EA has "scaled back" the copy protection. Now it's almost the same as the copy protection on Bioshock, (both use SecuROM) except no license revoke tool to transfer the software to another machine, and not as many activations allowed. Three activations maximum.

What's really strange is that a lot of people seem to be OK with this. I think, basically, EA said "We're going to cut off your head and your arm if you play this game," and everyone cried out "That's horrible!" So EA said "Ok, ok. We won't cut off your arm," and everyone rejoiced.

Looks like I won't be able to install Spore (4, Funny)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23757201)

I had to make room for a more imminent releases like Duke Nukem Forever, The Arrival of Godot and Jesus, The Second Coming.

linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23757769)

But does it run [on] linux?

Missing features (1)

Haoie (1277294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23758197)

From what I read recently, quite a substantial amount of content is either cut, or reduced in scope.

What comes to find first are the rules for dealing with flying/swimming creatures.

Re:Missing features (1)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763127)

What have you read and where did you read it?

How bout that "Extended Download Service"? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23758579)

If you try to pre-order, you're taken to a helpful, filled-out order form that includes the Spore Creature Editor for $9.99 and an item EA calls "Extended Download Service" for $5.99. WTF? A helpful link next to the item explains:

"EDS means that with the purchase of your digital product, we'll keep a copy of your file for two full years, so you don't have to. You'll gain peace of mind knowing that we have your program stored and ready for you to download again at your convenience."

So what it sounds like is, if you upgrade your PC, the only way you can lay your paws on your software that you purchased from EA is if you also pay "protection" money to them. And then only for two years. Swell, huh?

Re:How bout that "Extended Download Service"? (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 6 years ago | (#23760449)

So what it sounds like is, if you upgrade your PC, the only way you can lay your paws on your software that you purchased from EA is if you also pay "protection" money to them. And then only for two years. Swell, huh?
Or burn the download to a CD, or save it to a thumb drive, or save to another partition on your HDD. It's the same digital river style 'download protection' that's been in use for the past 8 years, it's a backup for the lazy.

Re:How bout that "Extended Download Service"? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23761251)

You do realize you can keep a backup of the file yourself, right? EA are under no obligation to waste bandwidth allowing you to download the file time and again for free.

Re:How bout that "Extended Download Service"? (2, Informative)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 6 years ago | (#23761613)

Why not? STEAM does it and people love them for it! That of course doesn't mean they *have to*, but one would think if they want to stay competitive in that sector of the business, it would be a good idea.

Re:How bout that "Extended Download Service"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763489)

The default on EA.com is to store the file for 6 months. All you have to do is go back to the store and get it.

Make a backup of the file and code you get, this way you'll for certain have a copy.

WINE/*nix Requirements? (2, Interesting)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23759919)

Hmm...I wonder what kind of specs you'll need to run the game decently through WINE? Hell, really I just hope it runs at all. Hopefully the release of the creature creator next week will help give the WINE devs plenty of time to make sure the full game will play when it's released ;)

Also...since there's an official Mac port, that does mean the game should have an optional OpenGL render right?

Re:WINE/*nix Requirements? (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763215)

Being EA the mac port is just the windows version wrapped in Cider. Which means it should run just fine in wine.

Re:WINE/*nix Requirements? (1)

Digital_Quartz (75366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763887)

Careful; Spore comes with product activation, so you better make sure you know what you're doing when you install it under Wine, otherwise you could end up wasting an activation or two.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?