🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 8, 10:05 am, DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com you may be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

So what?  Of those 159 one star raters probably none of them actually
have the game.  My guess is someone orchestrated a "let's diss Spore
on Amazon" campaign.

BTW, I couldn't care less as Spore doesn't interest me.

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 09:05:07 -0600 (MDT), DC
<nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

>1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>
>If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
>http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
>game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
>and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
>of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
>are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
>thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
>rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

I'm no fan of this type of copy protection, and could give less than a
shit about Spore, but this reeks of some web sites DRM agenda.

Here is my take on this, and what I suggest publishers do... These
titles are mostly only hot to pirates when they're new. If they
implement the DRM for the first few months of of the release they
would protect their program and satisfy long term fans. Perhaps patch
it or have it do one last "phone home" once the game hits the 20
dollar price point. After that point, all you would need is the CD key
and the install limitation would be removed.

I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
support.

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 09:05:07 -0600 (MDT), DC
<nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

>1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>
>If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
>http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
>game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
>and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
>of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
>are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
>thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
>rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

Amazon is known to remove inaccurrate or irrelevant ratings.  For
example, if a large quantity of ratings focuses on a single aspect
(e.g. this game had DRM, one star), it gets ranked down.  If it's well
reasoned (e.g. Normally I'd give a high rating, but for this site, you
may expect to come close to the activation limit, thus I'm forced to
give a low rating), it's unlikely to be removed.  

"DC" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message 
news:94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net...
> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
> ..Spore's DRM limits owners to only three activations of
> the game after installation. The point is to prohibit
> software pirates from sharing and reusing activation codes
> over and over, but it also means that if a user happens to
> uninstall and reinstall Spore more than three times for
> completely legitimate reasons, they'll have to contact
> Electronic Arts customer support to request and have
> approved a new authentication on a case-by-case basis.
> Which is precisely what has Amazon users up in arms.
>
> A quick scan of the negative reviews reveals some bitterly
> sensationalistic headlines: "DRM Kills another potentially
> great game," "Not a chance until the DRM goes," and "DRM
> complicates life, removes value." One reviewer, who calls
> the DRM "draconian," even likened a purchase to a rental as
> opposed to an actual ownership of the game, since a player
> could theoretically be barred from playing their copy of
> Spore if they use up their activations and EA refuses to
> allow more. "What you will be left with is a nice, colorful
> $50 coaster. And you will be required to pay for another
> copy/license if you want to continue playing," the user
> writes.
>
> And believe it or not, this backlash comes after EA and
> Maxis made Spore's DRM less stringent, when fans decried
> the originally announced plan to require online
> authentication every 10 days. As for how much the Amazon
> debacle will affect sales of the game remains uncertain,
> but it's probably a PR problem that EA and Maxis could have
> happily lived without.
>
>

I installed it on a laptop for the kids to play and switched off the 
wireless network before doing so and it worked fine.  It has been online 
since, however, so maybe it is time limited somehow.

Either way, it's another reason to simply get a pirated copy next time and 
not have to put up with the bullshit. 

On Sep 8, 12:29 pm, Tim O <tim...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 09:05:07 -0600 (MDT), DC
>
> <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> >1Up.comhttp://atu.ca/647
>
> >If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> >http://atu.ca/SPOREyou may be surprised to notice that the
> >game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> >and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> >of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> >are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> >thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> >rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
> I'm no fan of this type of copy protection, and could give less than a
> shit about Spore, but this reeks of some web sites DRM agenda.
>
> Here is my take on this, and what I suggest publishers do... These
> titles are mostly only hot to pirates when they're new. If they
> implement the DRM for the first few months of of the release they
> would protect their program and satisfy long term fans. Perhaps patch
> it or have it do one last "phone home" once the game hits the 20
> dollar price point. After that point, all you would need is the CD key
> and the install limitation would be removed.
The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating.  The DRM-
less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
North America.  So those who pirated the game were and still are
playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
without the game thinking this is a new installation.

> I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
> time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
> support.
As specified above, it's most probably not 3 "installs", it might be 3
different hardware configurations (otherwise you could just copy the
game folder and registry and would be able to install it as many times
as you want). That means, upgrading your video card, buying a new hard
drive, adding memory, installing a Bluray player, etc. could
potentially count as a new installation.  Also, I don't do it as
frequently as other people, but in the last 4 years I've re-installed
Windows 2 times, that means 5 years from now I would probably be out
of luck if I wanted to play a game I bought today.

On Sep 8, 2:17 pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating.  The DRM-
> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
> North America.  So those who pirated the game were and still are
> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
> without the game thinking this is a new installation.

DRM is like locks on your house.  It won't keep out a pro or something
who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.

WDS wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2:17 pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating.  The DRM-
>> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
>> North America.  So those who pirated the game were and still are
>> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
>> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
>> without the game thinking this is a new installation.
>>     
>
> DRM is like locks on your house.  It won't keep out a pro or something
> who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.
>   

The only difference being you aren't only given 3 keys to your house and 
told "this is all you get."  And every time you enter your house one of 
the keys breaks...  heh

CoinSpin

On Sep 8, 4:26 pm, CoinSpin <coin^spam^s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> WDS wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 2:17 pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating.  The DRM-
> >> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
> >> North America.  So those who pirated the game were and still are
> >> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
> >> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
> >> without the game thinking this is a new installation.
>
> > DRM is like locks on your house.  It won't keep out a pro or something
> > who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.
>
> The only difference being you aren't only given 3 keys to your house and
> told "this is all you get."  And every time you enter your house one of
> the keys breaks...  heh
>
> CoinSpin

And also, one thing is the standard copy protection, that will do what
he said... dissuade the casual thief, but Spore's DRM is really bad
for the consumer. I personally applaud and hope that the Amazon scores
news (that by now it's pretty much everywhere, I saw it in my yahoo
news page) gets to EA's ears.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:52 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:

>I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
>time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
>support.

I'm on my third install of Windows in the last 6 months or so.  Full
installs, not repair.  It has caused me to have to contact one place
to get additional activations.

In article <94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>,
 DC <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
> 
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).

Quite a few of them have something else in common: they are from people 
who either have not written any amazon reviews before this, or are from 
people that had one or two reviews a long time ago, plus a negative 
Kindle review a year ago, and now this.

I don't know how widespread that is, but there is definitely some kind 
of organized attempt to rig the vote.

This wouldn't be the first time.  There's some anti-DRM people 
systematically tagging Kindle books with anti-DRM terms and slogans.

It's not just anti-DRM people who try to manipulate Amazon.  When Ron 
Paul's book came out, there was a call on a popular Paul website to go 
give the book five stars, and links to that quickly circulated.  It very 
quickly got several hundred 5 star reviews, and each of those was voted 
as helpful by hundreds of people (yup...not only did the Paul flock 
members have time to go to Amazon, make new accounts, and add 5 star 
reviews, they had time to go vote up each other's reviews).  

-- 
--Tim Smith

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT), WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:

>DRM is like locks on your house.  It won't keep out a pro or something
>who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.

Unfortunately, the casual pirate gets his cracked games from p2p
networks, the same place they get their pirated mp3 music from.

I don't know where some people get the wrong idea that casual game
copying (casual piracy) today would mean copying games from your
friends CDs/diskettes/tapes. People, 80s with Apple IIc, C=64 and
Amiga is long gone. Internet is here.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:49:57 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:52 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
>>time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
>>support.
>
>I'm on my third install of Windows in the last 6 months or so.  Full
>installs, not repair.  It has caused me to have to contact one place
>to get additional activations.

I don't want to stray too far off the point, but what exactly are you
doing to your machine that requires that? It used to be at least once
a year with Windows 98, but since 2000 came out, the number of times
I've needed to reformat and reinstall the OS can be counted on one
hand. Thats maintaining about 5 machines, too.

My old gaming rig, a 3ghz Athlon XP became my wifes PC when I
upgraded. That computer has a 4 year old install of XP thats still
going fine.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Tim O <timo56@removehotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:49:57 -0700, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:52 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
>>>time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
>>>support.
>>
>>I'm on my third install of Windows in the last 6 months or so.  Full
>>installs, not repair.  It has caused me to have to contact one place
>>to get additional activations.
> 
> I don't want to stray too far off the point, but what exactly are you
> doing to your machine that requires that?

Maybe he's playing games on it. Some games have DRM that not only
cripples the game itself, but the entire PC. And reinstalling Windows
is the easiest way to fix that.

Looks like a nice vicious cycle, that.


mcv.
-- 
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real.                  -- Zachriel

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>,
>  DC <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>   
>> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>>
>> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
>> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
>> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
>> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
>> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
>> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
>> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
>> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>>     
>
> Quite a few of them have something else in common: they are from people 
> who either have not written any amazon reviews before this, or are from 
> people that had one or two reviews a long time ago, plus a negative 
> Kindle review a year ago, and now this.
>
> I don't know how widespread that is, but there is definitely some kind 
> of organized attempt to rig the vote.
>
> This wouldn't be the first time.  There's some anti-DRM people 
> systematically tagging Kindle books with anti-DRM terms and slogans.
>
> It's not just anti-DRM people who try to manipulate Amazon.  When Ron 
> Paul's book came out, there was a call on a popular Paul website to go 
> give the book five stars, and links to that quickly circulated.  It very 
> quickly got several hundred 5 star reviews, and each of those was voted 
> as helpful by hundreds of people (yup...not only did the Paul flock 
> members have time to go to Amazon, make new accounts, and add 5 star 
> reviews, they had time to go vote up each other's reviews).  
>   

I love how quickly conspiracy theorists can jump to conclusions.  You do 
realize that it could just be that people REALLY DON'T LIKE THE DRM, 
don't you?  Spore is one of those games that appeals to a wider, 
different audience, so maybe those people have never written reviews 
because they've never had cause to.  Maybe they are younger or older 
than the usual demographic that buys and rates games at Amazon.  Or 
maybe, just maybe, they've just put up with shortcomings in the past and 
never felt the need to complain about anything until they ran into 
something that got them so up in arms they felt the need to rebel and 
make their voice heard!

Seriously, the DRM on Spore is ridiculous and only punishes and limits 
the legitimate purchasers of the game, it will not stop the hardcore 
pirates.  It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to think that maybe those 
legitimate purchasers are upset and want people to know about it.  Maybe 
they (like ALL other protesters EVER) are hoping that their viewpoints 
will eventually make their way to someone who matters and can make a 
difference, like the game publishing company.

CoinSpin

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:56:24 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:49:57 -0700, Loren Pechtel
><lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:52 -0400, Tim O <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I don't understand why someone would need to reinstall 3 times in that
>>>time period unless they're a shithead that deserves to deal with phone
>>>support.
>>
>>I'm on my third install of Windows in the last 6 months or so.  Full
>>installs, not repair.  It has caused me to have to contact one place
>>to get additional activations.
>
>I don't want to stray too far off the point, but what exactly are you
>doing to your machine that requires that? It used to be at least once
>a year with Windows 98, but since 2000 came out, the number of times
>I've needed to reformat and reinstall the OS can be counted on one
>hand. Thats maintaining about 5 machines, too.
>
>My old gaming rig, a 3ghz Athlon XP became my wifes PC when I
>upgraded. That computer has a 4 year old install of XP thats still
>going fine.

I haven't done anything oddball that I'm aware of.

One was a barf during a motherboard replacement--after the repair
install Windows decided it was running on drive E, one was Windows
deciding that if I pressed a key at the login prompt that it was no
longer going to act upon the keyboard or mouse.  (It was *NOT*
hung--wait and the screen saver kicked in.  Move the mouse and it
restored--but the mouse pointer didn't move.)

SPORE ??? Hmmm ...I can't get by thinking of this as BLACK & WHITE 3
Great fun to start & mess around in but soon get bored .
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse

...also it's interesting that nearly all of this thread is Re: the DRM 
rather than the Game ??
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse(that say 'Dull Game') 

"Wolfing" <wolfing1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:2ba68005-2929-4851-986d-f13258c98e6b@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 8, 4:26 pm, CoinSpin <coin^spam^s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> WDS wrote:
>> > On Sep 8, 2:17 pm, Wolfing <wolfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The whole point is that DRM does *nothing* to stop pirating. The DRM-
>> >> less cracked game was available 4!! days before it was released in
>> >> North America. So those who pirated the game were and still are
>> >> playing the game not caring about how many computers they install it
>> >> on, or if they can safely upgrade their video card or hard drive
>> >> without the game thinking this is a new installation.
>>
>> > DRM is like locks on your house. It won't keep out a pro or something
>> > who REALLY wants in but it will dissuade the casual thief.
>>
>> The only difference being you aren't only given 3 keys to your house and
>> told "this is all you get." And every time you enter your house one of
>> the keys breaks... heh
>>
>> CoinSpin
>
> And also, one thing is the standard copy protection, that will do what
> he said... dissuade the casual thief, but Spore's DRM is really bad
> for the consumer. I personally applaud and hope that the Amazon scores
> news (that by now it's pretty much everywhere, I saw it in my yahoo
> news page) gets to EA's ears.

Can't we report EA to trading standards in the Uk? After all I'm sure 
neither the advertising on Amazon nor the box mention anywhere that one only 
has a maximum of three installs (across hardware), surely this is a 
misrepresentation of the contents of the box.

RobP 

Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> ...also it's interesting that nearly all of this thread is Re: the DRM 
> rather than the Game ??


That'd be because the thread is about comments about DRM and not the 
game no?

In article <XIWdncCulYljHVvVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com>,
 CoinSpin <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote:
> I love how quickly conspiracy theorists can jump to conclusions.  You do 
> realize that it could just be that people REALLY DON'T LIKE THE DRM, 
> don't you?  Spore is one of those games that appeals to a wider, 
> different audience, so maybe those people have never written reviews 
> because they've never had cause to.  Maybe they are younger or older 
> than the usual demographic that buys and rates games at Amazon.  Or 
> maybe, just maybe, they've just put up with shortcomings in the past and 
> never felt the need to complain about anything until they ran into 
> something that got them so up in arms they felt the need to rebel and 
> make their voice heard!

Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting 
their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your 
explanations.



-- 
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <XIWdncCulYljHVvVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com>,
>  CoinSpin <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote:
>   
>> I love how quickly conspiracy theorists can jump to conclusions.  You do 
>> realize that it could just be that people REALLY DON'T LIKE THE DRM, 
>> don't you?  Spore is one of those games that appeals to a wider, 
>> different audience, so maybe those people have never written reviews 
>> because they've never had cause to.  Maybe they are younger or older 
>> than the usual demographic that buys and rates games at Amazon.  Or 
>> maybe, just maybe, they've just put up with shortcomings in the past and 
>> never felt the need to complain about anything until they ran into 
>> something that got them so up in arms they felt the need to rebel and 
>> make their voice heard!
>>     
>
> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting 
> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your 
> explanations.
>   

Umm, because draconian DRM measures are turning them off from buying the 
game in the first place.

Doesn't rule out any of my explanations at all, just strengthens 
them...  They are protesting the DRM that is souring their potential 
purchase in a medium that they hope will get some attention, since the 
developers obviously don't give 2 shits about the average (as in silent) 
consumer's opinion.

But I do have one area that I have to agree with you there...  There 
should NEVER be "customer reviews" of a title allowed prior to any 
customers actually HAVING the product.  That's just plain silly.

CoinSpin

On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
> explanations.

But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)

--
Darin Johnson

Darin Johnson wrote:
> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>   
>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>> explanations.
>>     
>
> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>   

I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to have 
consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the product, so 
how can the consumers rate it before it's even available for sale?  Up 
until the date of release, the only people capable of truly "reviewing" 
a game would be the press and people given early copies for evaluation.

CoinSpin

"Darin Johnson" <darin@usa.net> wrote in message 
news:72088a8a-e226-438e-b997-f558430020e0@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet. They are posting
>> their reviews *before* trying the game. That rules out most of your
>> explanations.
>
> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>
> --
> Darin Johnson

Agreed. None of the professional reviewers mention DRM or activation limits. 
To me this is a fundamental part of the merchantable package as it directly 
affects its value.

I am of the belief that the advertising and the packaging of these DRM laden 
games is in breach of the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 with respect to 'Of 
Satisfactory Quality'.

A consumer should know, before they buy a game, how often they can activate 
or install it.  Not indicating these limits directly affects the 
Merchantable quality and value of the package, yet it is never placed on the 
packaging or advertising. This is a misrepresentation of the contents of the 
box as a consumer can reasonably expect to install a piece of software as 
often as they like, provided that there is only ever one instance of the 
installation at any one time and that they are the legal owners of the 
CD/DVD.

I am in communications with the Uk Trading Standards body about this and 
hope to pursue this further.

RobP 

Rob P wrote:
> "Darin Johnson" <darin@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:72088a8a-e226-438e-b997-f558430020e0@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet. They are
>>> posting their reviews *before* trying the game. That rules out most
>>> of your explanations.
>>
>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>
>> --
>> Darin Johnson
>
> Agreed. None of the professional reviewers mention DRM or activation
> limits. To me this is a fundamental part of the merchantable package
> as it directly affects its value.
>
> I am of the belief that the advertising and the packaging of these
> DRM laden games is in breach of the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 with
> respect to 'Of Satisfactory Quality'.
>
> A consumer should know, before they buy a game, how often they can
> activate or install it.  Not indicating these limits directly affects
> the Merchantable quality and value of the package, yet it is never
> placed on the packaging or advertising. This is a misrepresentation
> of the contents of the box as a consumer can reasonably expect to
> install a piece of software as often as they like, provided that
> there is only ever one instance of the installation at any one time
> and that they are the legal owners of the CD/DVD.
>
> I am in communications with the Uk Trading Standards body about this
> and hope to pursue this further.
>
Keep us informed please?  And I wish you luck.

-- 
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08 

"CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:LKqdnaD9Z7r2QlvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Darin Johnson wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
>>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>>> explanations.
>>>
>>
>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>
>
> I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to have 
> consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the product, so how 
> can the consumers rate it before it's even available for sale?

I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, and 
accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.

SpammersDie wrote:
> "CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:LKqdnaD9Z7r2QlvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>   
>> Darin Johnson wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
>>>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>>>> explanations.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>>
>>>       
>> I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to have 
>> consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the product, so how 
>> can the consumers rate it before it's even available for sale?
>>     
>
> I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, and 
> accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.
>   

Doesn't it?  I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, 
but they are giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue 
ONLY, without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it 
could have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...  And have 
this DRM issue...  But if you just look at the Amazon score of 1 star, 
without delving deeper into why it's only got 1 star, you'd get a false 
impression that the entire game sucks ass.

So, yes, I'd say accuracy of the reviews should be questioned.  I stick 
by my earlier comment, letting someone rate a game they have NEVER EVEN 
PLAYED is just ridiculous.  But I'm torn, because I applaud the 
reviewers for attempting to make a stand against the  DRM through this 
review process...  Bah, it's making me schizophrenic!

CoinSpin

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:51:26 -0700, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>In article <94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>,
> DC <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>> 
>> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com 
>> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the 
>> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
>> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment 
>> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159 
>> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one 
>> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital 
>> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
>Quite a few of them have something else in common: they are from people 
>who either have not written any amazon reviews before this, or are from 
>people that had one or two reviews a long time ago, plus a negative 
>Kindle review a year ago, and now this.
>
>I don't know how widespread that is, but there is definitely some kind 
>of organized attempt to rig the vote.
>
>This wouldn't be the first time.  There's some anti-DRM people 
>systematically tagging Kindle books with anti-DRM terms and slogans.
>
>It's not just anti-DRM people who try to manipulate Amazon.  When Ron 
>Paul's book came out, there was a call on a popular Paul website to go 
>give the book five stars, and links to that quickly circulated.  It very 
>quickly got several hundred 5 star reviews, and each of those was voted 
>as helpful by hundreds of people (yup...not only did the Paul flock 
>members have time to go to Amazon, make new accounts, and add 5 star 
>reviews, they had time to go vote up each other's reviews).  
>
>-- 
>--Tim Smith

Hey, Tim.

I have refused to buy EA's Mass Effect because it uses the same DRM as
Spore, akthough I would really like to buy the game. I have never
pirated any computer-games, so a torrent alternative is not a personal
option. In the case of Spore, it seems a universally awful game from
my personal view, but I can understand the DRM uproar from those who
would like to play the game. EA is in the process of acquiring Take
Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
whenever the game is uninstalled. Easily implemented in a patch to
Spore or Mass Effect. Bioshock originally had a far more stringent DRM
scheme, but (unlike EA so far) Take Two/2K Games listened to the
customers and migrated to the current DRM scheme after the first 2
patches - applicable to all copies of the game regardless of purchase
time.

John Lewis

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:29:36 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>...also it's interesting that nearly all of this thread is Re: the DRM 
>rather than the Game ??
>(\__/)
>(='.'=)
>(")_(")  mouse(that say 'Dull Game') 
>
>


Having a teeny-weeny comprehension problem today, mousey. Please read
the header to this thread. If you want to discuss the (lack of) virtue
in the game-play of Spore, feel free to start another relevant thread.

John Lewis

>>>
>>
>> I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, and 
>> accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.
>>
>
> Doesn't it?
> I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, but they are 
> giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue ONLY,

The score is a separate thing from the review. Scores are inherently 
subjective and can't really be "disputed." I'm talking about the factual 
assertions in the text of the reviews, which I haven't seen anyone 
disputing.


> without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it could 
> have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...

But if it comes packaged in a DRM that these reviewers find unacceptable, 
then the product is worthless and it's the product that's being reviewed. It 
just doesn't matter how wonderful the gameplay is if people won't buy it 
because of the DRM - hence, a "1 star" in the DRM category *should* limit 
the total score to 1. It also works the other way: if the gameplay is a "1", 
it doesn't matter if the game has no DRM at all - the total score can still 
be no better than 1.



> And have this DRM issue...  But if you just look at the Amazon score of 1 
> star, without delving deeper into why it's only got 1 star, you'd get a 
> false impression that the entire game sucks ass.

That's only if you think of the total score as an "average" of the component 
scores. For lower-priority categories like graphics, that makes some sense 
but the really critical categories like gameplay, bug-freeness and DRM 
(really a subcategory of the "bug-freeness" category) can and should act as 
ceilings on the total score.

"Tim O" <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> Here is my take on this, and what I suggest publishers do... These
> titles are mostly only hot to pirates when they're new. If they
> implement the DRM for the first few months of of the release they
> would protect their program and satisfy long term fans.

The cracked version of Spore was on usenet around a week before the US 
release.

~None 

On Sep 9, 10:22 pm, john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:51:26 -0700, Tim Smith
>
>
>
> <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >In article <94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549c...@pseudo.borked.net>,
> > DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> >> 1Up.comhttp://atu.ca/647
>
> >> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> >>http://atu.ca/SPOREyou may be surprised to notice that the
> >> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> >> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> >> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> >> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> >> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> >> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
> >Quite a few of them have something else in common: they are from people
> >who either have not written any amazon reviews before this, or are from
> >people that had one or two reviews a long time ago, plus a negative
> >Kindle review a year ago, and now this.
>
> >I don't know how widespread that is, but there is definitely some kind
> >of organized attempt to rig the vote.
>
> >This wouldn't be the first time.  There's some anti-DRM people
> >systematically tagging Kindle books with anti-DRM terms and slogans.
>
> >It's not just anti-DRM people who try to manipulate Amazon.  When Ron
> >Paul's book came out, there was a call on a popular Paul website to go
> >give the book five stars, and links to that quickly circulated.  It very
> >quickly got several hundred 5 star reviews, and each of those was voted
> >as helpful by hundreds of people (yup...not only did the Paul flock
> >members have time to go to Amazon, make new accounts, and add 5 star
> >reviews, they had time to go vote up each other's reviews).  
>
> >--
> >--Tim Smith
>
> Hey, Tim.
>
> I have refused to buy EA's Mass Effect because it uses the same DRM as
> Spore, akthough I would really like to buy the game. I have never
> pirated any computer-games, so a torrent alternative is not a personal
> option. In the case of Spore, it seems a universally awful game from
> my personal view, but I can understand the DRM uproar from those who
> would like to play the game. EA is in the process of acquiring Take
> Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
> copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
> whenever the game is uninstalled. Easily implemented in a patch to
> Spore or Mass Effect. Bioshock originally had a far more stringent DRM
> scheme, but (unlike EA so far) Take Two/2K Games listened to the
> customers and migrated to the current DRM scheme after the first 2
> patches - applicable to all copies of the game regardless of purchase
> time.
>
> John Lewis

Hmm.. I have Mass Effect.  I have had some serious problems with the
system hanging for long periods when there is a CD in the drive.  I'm
not sure if it's the DRM that came with Mass Effect or if the drive
itself isn't compatible with my HD, as I had some difficulty
installing windows as well and had compatibility issues between it and
my old HD. but I don't remember that particular problem before
installing Mass Effect - I'm not absolutely sure though.  I haven't
put any other CDs in the drive since so it might have just been the ME
CD too.

Is there somewhere you can point me to for people having problems with
this DRM?

- Justisaur

Sorry to hear Re's John (the Mighty) Lewis's  "comprehension
problem"..hopefully it is indeed Teeny Weenie.
...The fact that lots want to discuss the Spore DRM is clear , powerful
symptom
that the game is not interesting them , not enough anyway to take the
collective minds(s)
off the DRM
.
If the game itself is in fact interesting enough to deserve a Thread then
one of those interested here would have started one ?
It would be far to arrogant & forward for one such as I to go against the
clear desires of the masses & start such a Thread .
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse(yea that told 'im proper !)

none wrote:
> "Tim O" <timo56@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is my take on this, and what I suggest publishers do... These
>> titles are mostly only hot to pirates when they're new. If they
>> implement the DRM for the first few months of of the release they
>> would protect their program and satisfy long term fans.
>
> The cracked version of Spore was on usenet around a week before the US
> release.
>
You'd think the publishers would learn something from the fact that pirated 
copies keep showing up days or weeks before the "legal" versions.  Like the 
problem is not someone buying one and then copying it for the world?  And 
DRM anti-copying measures on the copies they sell aren't going to do a thing 
about large scale piracy because the real software pirates are tapping in 
much farther up the distribution chain?

-- 
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08 

On the 10 Sep 2008, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:

<snip>

> they might just consider copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5
> installations, each RECOVERABLE whenever the game is uninstalled.

That assumes that you managed to run the uninstall program, though. If 
you've had a problem with Windows that meant that you had to reformat 
the machine then the activation's still gone, I would imagine.

-- 
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:37:52 +0100, Graham Thurlwell
<nospam@jades.org> wrote:

>On the 10 Sep 2008, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> they might just consider copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5
>> installations, each RECOVERABLE whenever the game is uninstalled.
>
>That assumes that you managed to run the uninstall program, though. If 
>you've had a problem with Windows that meant that you had to reformat 
>the machine then the activation's still gone, I would imagine.
>

Not if you have generated one or more image/incremental backups of
your system (C:) drive after installing the game. Just recover the
latest image. Added benefit --  no need to re-install Windows. Anybody
who does not regularly image backup their system partition, or perform
a System Restore before installing new drivers or applications
deserves the consequences.

Anyway, in many cases of problems with Windows integrity, an uninstall
of an application can still be successfully performed before taking
any more drastic measures to rectify the problem.

John Lewis



>Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
>The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
>
>nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!

On Sep 9, 10:22 pm, john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
> EA is in the process of acquiring Take
> Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
> copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
> whenever the game is uninstalled.

How about no DRM at all?  I don't want my game to have to
call home to a server to get permission every time I install a
game.  It doesn't fix the fundamental problem that you're
relying on the publisher's infrastructure to remain around
and accessible for as long as you want to play the game.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Darin Johnson
<darin@usa.net> wrote:

>On Sep 9, 10:22=A0pm, john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>> EA is in the process of acquiring Take
>> Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
>> copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
>> whenever the game is uninstalled.
>
>How about no DRM at all?  I don't want my game to have to
>call home to a server to get permission every time I install a
>game.  It doesn't fix the fundamental problem that you're
>relying on the publisher's infrastructure to remain around
>and accessible for as long as you want to play the game.


I agree entirely!!! But the paying customer suffers the consequences
of rampant piracy. No piracy, no DRM -- except for Valve, who have
another few Valve-benefiting reasons to permanently attach their
purchasers to Valve via Steam. 

John Lewis

John Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Darin Johnson
> <darin@usa.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 9, 10:22=A0pm, john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>> EA is in the process of acquiring Take
>>> Two, so while thay are in that process, they might just consider
>>> copying the Bioshock DRM scheme - 5 installations, each RECOVERABLE
>>> whenever the game is uninstalled.
>> How about no DRM at all?  I don't want my game to have to
>> call home to a server to get permission every time I install a
>> game.  It doesn't fix the fundamental problem that you're
>> relying on the publisher's infrastructure to remain around
>> and accessible for as long as you want to play the game.
> 
> 
> I agree entirely!!! But the paying customer suffers the consequences
> of rampant piracy. No piracy, no DRM -- except for Valve, who have
> another few Valve-benefiting reasons to permanently attach their
> purchasers to Valve via Steam. 


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7604405.stm

"SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message 
news:NNJxk.210305$102.14161@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>> I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, but they are 
>> giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue ONLY,
> The score is a separate thing from the review. Scores are inherently 
> subjective and can't really be "disputed." I'm talking about the factual 
> assertions in the text of the reviews, which I haven't seen anyone 
> disputing.
>> without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it could 
>> have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...
> But if it comes packaged in a DRM that these reviewers find unacceptable, 
> then the product is worthless and it's the product that's being reviewed. 
> It just doesn't matter how wonderful the gameplay is if people won't buy 
> it because of the DRM - hence, a "1 star" in the DRM category *should* 
> limit the total score to 1. It also works the other way: if the gameplay 
> is a "1", it doesn't matter if the game has no DRM at all - the total 
> score can still be no better than 1.

I totally agree that DRM should be included in the score - it's ever bit as 
important as the gameplay if you can't even GET to the gameplay due to the 
DRM.

These fucking publishers go on and on about "piracy destroying the PC games 
industry" and yet keep putting in more and more DRM that pisses off more and 
more people. If a gamer can just download a pirate copy of a game for free 
without any DRM, or pay $50-$60 for a game with draconian DRM, which do you 
think they are going to do? Why would anybody buy these games?

How exactly do I buy a game without DRM, supporting the developer while 
bypassing the publisher? 

On 2008-09-11, Kroagnon <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote:
>
> How exactly do I buy a game without DRM, supporting the developer while 
> bypassing the publisher? 

There is no general way to bypass the publisher. If you purchase the
game then get the no-DRM crack, however, you can buy your game and
play it too.

Legality may vary.

Cheers,
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

Kroagnon wrote:
> "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message 
> news:NNJxk.210305$102.14161@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>   
>>> I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, but they are 
>>> giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue ONLY,
>>>       
>> The score is a separate thing from the review. Scores are inherently 
>> subjective and can't really be "disputed." I'm talking about the factual 
>> assertions in the text of the reviews, which I haven't seen anyone 
>> disputing.
>>     
>>> without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it could 
>>> have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...
>>>       
>> But if it comes packaged in a DRM that these reviewers find unacceptable, 
>> then the product is worthless and it's the product that's being reviewed. 
>> It just doesn't matter how wonderful the gameplay is if people won't buy 
>> it because of the DRM - hence, a "1 star" in the DRM category *should* 
>> limit the total score to 1. It also works the other way: if the gameplay 
>> is a "1", it doesn't matter if the game has no DRM at all - the total 
>> score can still be no better than 1.
>>     
>
> I totally agree that DRM should be included in the score - it's ever bit as 
> important as the gameplay if you can't even GET to the gameplay due to the 
> DRM.
>
> These fucking publishers go on and on about "piracy destroying the PC games 
> industry" and yet keep putting in more and more DRM that pisses off more and 
> more people. If a gamer can just download a pirate copy of a game for free 
> without any DRM, or pay $50-$60 for a game with draconian DRM, which do you 
> think they are going to do? Why would anybody buy these games?
>
>   

And people wonder why "PC games are failing" these days...  Many of the 
titles are available on consoles, where you can go and play to your 
heart's content without having to deal with DRM issues - it's all 
built-in in a sub-level you never really even have to acknowledge on the 
console.  Pretty sad when consoles are becoming more "plug & play" than 
the PCs that originated the phrase.

CoinSpin

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:
> Anybody
> who does not regularly image backup their system partition, or perform
> a System Restore before installing new drivers or applications
> deserves the consequences.

Err...what? Why on earth would you waste time and space backing up Windows 
or your applications, both of which can be easily reinstalled? Anything that 
traps system calls (as SecuROM does) may or may not work with system resore. 
Just as you can't use system restore to remove most spyware/worms - which, 
let's face it, is essentially what SecuROM is.

~None 

CoinSpin wrote:
> Pretty sad when consoles are becoming more "plug & play" than 
> the PCs that originated the phrase.

Nitpick: I'm pretty sure it was the Mac that invented "plug & play."

Rob P wrote:
> I am in communications with the Uk Trading Standards body about this and 
> hope to pursue this further.

More power to you.  Unfortunately the computing industry in general has 
done its best over the years to avoid having to live up to trading 
standards, to the extent in some cases claiming that providing you a 
disk was a "service" and not a "product" (which has totally different 
liability laws)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> CoinSpin wrote:
>> Pretty sad when consoles are becoming more "plug & play" than the PCs 
>> that originated the phrase.
>
> Nitpick: I'm pretty sure it was the Mac that invented "plug & play."

Well, true and false...  The Mac had "plug & play" capabilities for 
quite a while previously, but Microsoft is generally credited with 
coining the actual phrase as part of the sales pitch for Windows95.  
They wanted people to think it was a shiny new thing, came up with a 
quirky little catchy name for it, and made like they had invented the 
concept.  Kinda like they did with the whole windows concept...  It's 
all about the PR spin, you know.

CoinSpin

CoinSpin wrote:
> Pretty sad when consoles are becoming more "plug & play" than the PCs 
> that originated the phrase.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Nitpick: I'm pretty sure it was the Mac that invented "plug & play."

CoinSpin  <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well, true and false...  The Mac had "plug & play" capabilities for 
>quite a while previously, but Microsoft is generally credited with 
>coining the actual phrase as part of the sales pitch for Windows95.  

Well, the phrase "plug and play" predates both.  I had an Okidata ML92
printer from 1983 that supported a "Plug 'N Play" option.  It made it
emulate an IBM printer so in theory it could be used with an IBM computer
without requiring special Okidata drivers (for each of your applications).
I recall at the time that phrase wasn't unique to Okidata, and was sort
of a buzz word.

Note that early Macintoshes didn't support any sort of plug and play
functionality.  Plug and play refers to the ability to plug in some
sort of device into a computer and just have it work.  Early Macs didn't
support pluging in much of anything.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> writes:

> Note that early Macintoshes didn't support any sort of plug and play
> functionality.  Plug and play refers to the ability to plug in some
> sort of device into a computer and just have it work.  Early Macs didn't
> support pluging in much of anything.

My first memory of plug and play is someone trying to detach an extra
battery from a laptop and put in a CD drive, in a modular bay or
whatever it was called back then. Laptop was running Windows 1995 and
the guy gushed about how cool plug and play is. The machine crashed of
course...

I seem to also remember the iMacs did popularize USB in the late
1990s, with the first iMac which came out in 1998. So that would be
the start of plug and play on the Macs.

Anssi Saari wrote:
> I seem to also remember the iMacs did popularize USB in the late
> 1990s, with the first iMac which came out in 1998. So that would be
> the start of plug and play on the Macs.

I seem to recall plug-and-play far preceding the iMac, but sometimes my 
recall isn't worth much.

On the 17 Sep 2008, David Alex Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

> Anssi Saari wrote:
>> I seem to also remember the iMacs did popularize USB in the late
>> 1990s, with the first iMac which came out in 1998. So that would be
>> the start of plug and play on the Macs.

> I seem to recall plug-and-play far preceding the iMac, but sometimes my
> recall isn't worth much.

It wasn't called plug-and-play, but a lot of stuff for the BBC micro 
and its successors would work straight away. This was because the 
drivers etc were in ROMs on the card or peripheral. The Beeb had 
massive expandability.

-- 
Graham Thurlwell.
Jades' First Encounters Site.
http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.