Spore: Guerrilla Tech Support

I bought a copy of the PC game Spore for Jr. It seems like a cool way to learn about evolution (at least a cartoonish version of it) and any game that does not involve broadswords is an improvement. But, the darn thing does not fully work.

Normally, I am the go-to tech guy in my family. I generally can solve most PC issues and I am not put off by moderately complicated tasks like swapping out hard drives or setting up wireless networks. Overall, I would say I rank in the above average category for computer literacy. That is why it is so annoying that I can't get this thing to work. Specifically, I cannot log in to the game. It does not recognize that my computer is solidly connected to the internet. This means we can only play with local data and--importantly--can't get the patches to update the game.

I am not griping about this without having put in effort. I have done the following:
  • Sent a screen shot of the error message to EA
  • Sent a DirectX diagnostic log to EA
  • Configured my Windows Firewall to give Spore permission to access the internet
  • Configured by McAfee firewall to do the same
  • Configured my wireless router to open the required ports
  • Confirmed with my ISP that they are not blocking any ports
  • Set a bunch of netsh global parameters that I honestly do not understand
  • Located the Spore patch on an independent server and applied it


I'm about done. I thought I had struck gold when I found this handy article entitled "Why Spore Won't Work." The article (and a million complaints on the Amazon Spore forum) point the finger at terrible digital rights management features built into the program. Still no luck.

The truly obsessive are having a field day at Amazon.

For me, the bottom line is just whether my kid can play the full game. If not, I have been ripped off for $50 (maybe $20 since we get value from the local aspects of the game). I don't really care too much about whether there is DRM software included, provided it does not interfere with functionality or the operation of my PC. In other words, if EA wants to protect its intellectual property they have every right to do so. Hell, I'd be happy to help. But, if by doing so, they end up with a crappy product, they will lose customers. Some of them will be like me--on the brink of about 10 years of video game buying. This does not seem like a good strategy for a compay with stock that has traded at $60 this year but is now down to about $20.

So, rather than continue my already long and fruitless correspondence with Matteo and Manpreet in tech support, I am turning to my readers for the indulgence to let me rant and on the chance that just maybe one of you can help a guy out. And, should anyone at EA see this, feel free to drop me an e-mail. I am not above retracting this you make things right.

Comments

beagle said…
I bought my game in Sept. It still does not work. I have contacted support multiple times, and still my game does not work.

I basically got ripped for $50. EA has lost my business.
Dec 5, 2008, 9:55:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more