Talk:Spore (2008 video game)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Reception

This section should be updated/changed. It should be noted that the game is being received terribly by consumers. Otherwise, this section is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.37.23 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If by terrible you mean that people are unhappy about the DRM, that is mentioned. I don't think any reliable sources have really talked about fan opinion of the game overall outside of that though.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the DRM but the game itself. Almost all of the user reviews you'll find are unfavorable.--210.4.37.23 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Until a reliable source covers that aspect we can't include it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The official Spore forums are full of it, as is the Metacritic user vote aggregate. The biggest issue complained about (regardless of shallow gameplay in earlier stages) is the intense frequency of eco-disasters & pirate attacks. See Arstechnica for a sentiment similar to that of grumpy gamers, quotes included below. The listed reviews in reception do imply a more positive spin by excluding lower scoring reviews such as linked above, leaving one hoping EA isn't interfering with the wiki. 58.179.224.144 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Aggregates are used in the article. As stated before, forums, user reviews, etc all fail WP:V and can't be used in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, crap, I didn't use the cite properly, so you couldn't see the link I was referring to with the quotes. Arstechnica isn't a user review/forum, it's a proper game review by a regular tech site, valid (AFAIK) as much as any other review on here, without being twisted for positive spin on the game's failings. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/games/spore-review.ars

"Spore had begun to feel like the world's largest kiddie pool: five miles wide and two feet deep."

"...the more frequent and annoying the attacks and eco-disasters became on my inhabited worlds; I couldn't go a few minutes without someone calling for help"

"Imagine an expansion pack release for each phase, adding in the depth that's sorely missing. It's not a fun thought." 58.179.224.144 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The video game project hasn't evaluated arstechnica Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources, but I know its a really popular site. The only thing that gives me pause about the site is their user agreement THE WEBSITE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", AND THE SERVICE PROVIDER, ITS AFFILIATES AND ITS THIRD PARTY SERVICE PROVIDERS HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, its a fairly standard user agreement on a lot of sites, but one thing people on wikipedia typically look for in evaluating a site is an assertion that they stand behind what they've written. Probably the site is fine, you might dig around WP:RS and the RS noticeboard to see if there was any conclusions drawn about using Ars as a reliable source. So you can source from that, but I don't think it speaks to any user opinion.--Crossmr (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. IGN and CBS Interactive (for GameSpot) state pretty much the same thing. THE IGN PARTIES MAKE NO WARRANTY THAT... THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE SERVICES WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE. So it should be fine to source in thar regards. But like you said, I realize it can be quoted for stating the failings, but alas not a way to speak to user opinion. Heck, though, what would? A reputable site saying "Hey, the forums look angry, look at that user score in metacritic and these common complaints"? It winds up being the same base source. So many of the user complaints on Amazon, which were noted here, are more than about just DRM. For that matter, has anyone referred to Amazon deleting all the negative Spore reviews on Friday? I'd update the wiki, but I'd rather someone less likely to be reverted do it. :/ Scribblette (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in)

As I said fairly typical disclaimer, so you have to look at the site beyond that. As for citing it, yes. A reliable source needs to write an article about it. It happens sometimes, but not that often. Unless they do, you can't cite it. Remember user forums are generally only a tiny fraction of the actual users so even if it looks like a lot of upset people those couple thousand are only a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of users.--Crossmr (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Those couple of thousands from forums everywhere is a great representation of these hundreds of thousands. Are you saying that it's purely coincidental that these couple of thousands of users from all over the world just happen to think that spore is bad? --210.4.37.23 (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since there was talk it was started by some forums who encouraged users to go and do it. There is a reason these aren't considered reliable. No one can verify them for accuracy as such they can't be included in the article themselves.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel the chart detailing scores from gaming review websites does not cover some of the lower scoring reviews as much as it does the higher scoring reviews. An aggregate site such as metacritic shows plenty of reviews around the level of 70% from reliable sources, however these are not mentioned in the chart. I feel this gives the impression that the game was held to higher acclaim then it actually was. What are your views on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.181.220 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• It has a Metacritic score of 85, what more do you want? If you mention specific reviews at 70%, you'll have to also mention specific reviews at a higher score. (note: user submitted scores and review are NOT applicable) Dp76764 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This game is a really big dissapointment. My brother bought it for my birthday, me thinking that the game was going to be like they had promised, in like, every video made by Maxis. I couldn't believe how pathetically simple it was. Maybe when Wright was going to release he was having delusions thinking that he was playing "sim half-a*s a good game". Horrible. Boring, short, and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.247.28 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've heard from almost everyone who plays it, on or offline, and is why I wanted to find some way to report what users think on here, rather than just critics. If you find a reputable source that points out user backlash, we'd love to hear about it - problem is any results on such for Spore are drowned in all the DRM complaints! Couldn't care less about DRM if the game was actually good enough. Scribblette (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

the village voice gave the game a 6 out of 10:

For the record: Spore isn’t a “life-simulator”, and certainly doesn’t simulate evolution. Despite whatever Wright initially intended or EA’s marketing might have you believe, there’s little to Spore that’s any more “evolutionary” than creating a Mii with Nintendo’s Wii, modifying the paint and tires of a car in Forza 2, or making an exact replica of Kentucky Fried Chicken in The Sims; Spore is, in essence, a customization program, bundled with the software that lets you share your work. It’s an interesting product and impressive in its own rite, but not nearly as ambitious as touted – and most damningly, it doesn’t meet the high standard set by Wright’s previous efforts in terms of gameplay design, since so much of Spore feels borrowed from other games.

surely the village voice can be used as a reputable source. does this work for those who were concerned about ars technica? Illegalyouth (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific debate

A lot of the section regarding the scientific merit of SPORE devolves into a totally irrelevant rant opposing darwinism and religion. That section should be deleted from the article; it's unrelated to the game itself, and has already been covered in several more relevant Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.213.85.254 (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole section was very academic and hypothetical. It didn't really describe the game itself, but rather focused on whether cartain real-world theories of biology and anthropology had been successfully incorporated into Spore. Accordingly, i've moved it to the "Development of" article. It's well written and thoughtful, and may well be of interest to many people, but certainly doesn't belong in the main article, which should simply describe the game itself. Besides, this article is too long as it is. 2p0rk (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the player directs how the creatures evolve, it is intelligent design of sorts, isn't it? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a bit of both without actually satisfying either. Ultimately its a game and the game rules trump the theory rules. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's neither, this game has nothing that even resembles scientific or religious content. Hopefully the section won't come back. Leushenko (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Spore is gold

Posted the item in the article - however, it should be removed once the game is released. JAF1970 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Release date

EA posted the press release: will be available for the Mac and PC at retailers September 5 in Europe and September 7 in North America and Asia Pacific. Spore(TM) Creatures for Nintendo DS(TM) and Spore(TM) Origins for mobile phones will also be available globally September 7. That's final. JAF1970 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd. Here in Scandinavia, i've checked every store in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. All of them says 4th of September, and has said so since January. Not sure it's of any importance to the article though. Same with Australia. Serio (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's September 4 for Australia at least (sources in an above section are more than enough proof). However if anyone adds it to the article: JAF will remove it and complain that they aren't right sources or whatever. I guess we will have to prove him wrong if the game does come out on that date, it's only weeks away now. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the shops say 23:59 4th in order to appear early compared to the other shops, while EA says 00:01 5th to avoid people going in vain.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stores usually get the actual product several days in advance, but if they sell it before the official release date then its at their own risk. The latest Harry Potter book had that kind of retailer vs. publisher spat. Depending on the clout of the publisher, the retailer may find himself not selling that product anymore. Also there is truth to what Per Abrahamsen says, a retailer may stay open past midnight on the 4th to sell the product. So while its technically the 5th, the retailer will concider the sales as part of their reciepts on the 4th. Thus making it a release date shell game not unlike movies that officially come out on Fridays, but have "sneak peeks" showing one or even two days before. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about online stores. Specifically the one i mentioned sends the game a day or two before release, in order for the customer to have the game on the release date mentioned on the site, which in this case is 4th of September. Serio (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that AU's EA states 7th Sept for Spore release. People need to stop changing it. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also noting that Asia Pacific includes Australia. No need for the redundant mentioning of it. (not like the anons go in here and look at this) ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a moderator on the EA AsiaPac site, I can tell you that those dates are rarely updated, and are usually incorrect. Spik3balloon (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The page currently says "Spore will also be available for direct download from Electronic Arts on September 7." In the UK the date for direct download is September 5. I'm pretty certain the dates for direct downloads from the EA Store are no different to the dates listed previously, so this line should be removed. AdamBristol (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough - just remove the release date for a download - already says "download" in the infobox. JAF1970 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2008

Spore was freely available to buy on Monday 1st September in Australia. On the proceeding Friday, the retailers said it had been released here early. They also said some retailers were even selling it on Friday 29th August - but that this was unofficial. They said the official date was Monday 1st. Regardless of what EA's website says, people need to stop changing the date. I bought it on that day, so hell if I wouldn't know.(UTC)

This is just to tell you guys that the release date for Spore was not the 4th of Sep for Australasia (as it currently says), it may have been for Australia, but for New Zealand it was/is the 5th. Last time I checked, NZ was part of Australasia. Not sure how you'd like to rearrange this. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechwarrior Puppies (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

North America was not the last territory released. Spore was released in India on 10th Sept 08. Source: http://businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=9847 and other news sources. ---

Just to add to the mess: I got my German copy of the Galactic Edition at a local mall (not even a minor one) on the 3rd (noon!) local time. My English copy was dispatched by Amazon UK later that day. The forum was already full of players by the time I had started playing (Sept 3rd to 4th) -- 88.153.25.45 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the Australian release date

I bought a copy today (September 2nd) from an EB Games store in Australia, lol.. www.ebgames.com.au states the game is out now. --123.50.153.39 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Just... stop it. The press release issued by EA 2 weeks ago is quite clear. JAF1970 (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert them, explain it to them: then if they wont listen and they keep on re-adding it, report them. There is no need to complain here about it, since a majority of IP editors don't check talk pages. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request for semi-protect already. At least til the game is released worldwide on Sept 7. JAF1970 (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The US is not worldwide. It is the US, a subset of the world. Things happen at different times within the world, including the release of Spore in Australia on September 4th, 3 days before the US! In fact, by the time you take time differences into account, it is more like 3.5 days!Concretecold (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be added. Its relevant and it is correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasgood1 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about it being correct, but it might be worth mentioning. It's not very often that something like that gets announced in a paper, and the level of promotion of Spore in Australia is unusually high. Still it's all speculation, nobody can call it correct, especially since EA says something different. Soldant (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the edits, but EA Australia have confirmed in multiple places that the Australia date is Sept 4th. EA has confirmed the Sept 4 date is still on for Oz. - Kotaku AU, The street date for Spore still stands at 4th Sept. There have been no changes to the date. - YSum, EA AsiaPac Community Manager. Spik3balloon (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you do have a secondary source to back up your Sept 5th release date, considering that a) you are defending it so hard, and b) you do not actually reside in Australia, because almost every other secondary source disagrees with you. And considering that YSum is a primary source, this is verifiable, and there is no reason to dispute this date. Spik3balloon (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF refuses to allow it in the article, because it's not from the source he agrees with. Those sources are more than enough, but I can bet JAF still isn't happy. He will come here and say something such as "not in the press release! It can't be put in the article". This isn't new behavior by him either, he's been edit warring about the Australia date for a while. Plus he's used uncivil edit summaries, and been rude to editors on the talk page. Let's not forget the times where he was talking to people that apparently worked on the game, then JAF would come here and say they hated the article. Which is irrelevant, because the game makers simply didn't understand how Wikipedia articles are set up. Anyway, he needs to settle down, instead of getting so worked up over a Wikipedia article. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the date of the press release issued by Electronic Arts "Asia Pacific territories". Not only is it the most recent data, it's also the most valid. PS. I'm not the only person who is not allowing it. JAF1970 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF just proved my point: only the press release seems to be acceptable to him. Also, I see no one else constantly reverting it off the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The most recent, official information, yes, Rob. Others feel this way, too, like User:DMacks who semi-protected the article. JAF1970 (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we make this fair? If you don't live in Australia, don't change the release date. Seriously, walk past any video games store here and you'll see windows full of EA produced Spore advertising material CLEARLY stating that the release date here (ie, Australia) is the 4th of September (as well as the seemingly endless supply of sources that back it up, thanks Spik3balloon). Just because one source did not explicitly say it is the 4th, doesn't discount it. What is it going to take? Shall I post a picture of me with my copy at 9am, AEST, on the 4th? In the meantime you're ruining the ability of Australian users to access information from WP that is relevant to them. Perhaps if it doesn't affect you, don't edit it. There are enough intelligent Aussies to fill in our information if you don't want to properly acknowledge us.Concretecold (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the date of both the Kotaku confirmation and the post by YSum. They are both newer than the press release. Your press release is neither the most recent, nor the most official or valid (as EA in America does not handle the release dates for Australia). Also, by not having a secondary source to back up your claims, you are not complying with All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. This article does not belong to you, and you will have to face this fact. Spik3balloon (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, I usually go to WP to find fast information about release dates and yet its not here so I have to google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasgood1 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually listen to the publisher. By the way, Spore has been shipped, and stores have instructions on when to release it: Sept 5 in Europe, and Sept 7 in NA/Asia Pacific. IF stores break the street date.... JAF1970 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Playing by the rules of WP, we can request that information be added to a semi-protected site, and it will be done once we have some level of consensus. I hereby request that the Australian release date of September 4th, 2008, be added along with the references provided by myself, Spik3balloon, and others both here and in the previously undone edits. In the event that consensus cannot be reached, I will request removal of the protection. In particular, JAF1970 requested the protection "at least until the games are released, since anonymous IPs keep insisting on posting unverified Australian release dates, which have been recently contradicted by EA in their press release. There's also silly edits being made as well". Firstly, even by your own admission, JAF1970, the game will officially be release in Europe on the 5th, thus the protection (according to your rules and ignoring the other issue for the time being) should expire on the 5th, not the 7th as it does currently. Secondly, the Australian release dates are verifiable numerous times over, even if a particular person at EA did not explicitly state the date. As for anonymous IPs, I will gladly post the release date if this is all that concerns you, and I'm sure many other authorised users here would also be glad to do the same. Finally, "silly edits" is something subjective to you and may not be deemed silly to someone else and in the absence of examples of direct malicious vandalism should not be grounds for protection. The WP guidelines for protection explicitly state "In particular, it (semi-protection) should not be used to settle content disputes". The subjective nature of your dismissal of the references to the Australian release date (and the "silly edits") is not sufficient for you to achieve semi-protection on the page to settle a content dispute. Therefore, if consensus here cannot be obtained for the Australian release date to be added, I will be officially be requesting that the semi-protection be removed as it currently is contravening WP guidelines.Concretecold (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. "Asia Pacific". I don't see how in the world Australia has migrated to Europe. Lemme go check a map. Furthermore, EA's official press release is quite explicit. The semi-protection will be removed on September 7. You know, when the game's out. JAF1970 (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We haven't gone anywhere. Oh and the Europeans get the game on the 5th. You know, before the 7th.Concretecold (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Regarding Kotaku, they've been wrong quite frequently. Like, claiming Spore Origins on the iPhone was the FULL VERSION of Spore. (laugh) JAF1970 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I'm just wondering, but when au.gamespot.com has it as the fourth, and several Australian Wikipedians have verified that stores in their area have the date. And JAF, do you seek to prove how little weight your comments hold? The only way to assume that the combination of multiple reliable sources and Australian Wikipedians' verification is to assume that these Wikipedians are lying, and that's a blatant violation of WP:AGF. And your comment of "Asia Pacific". If a game is stated as being released in Europe, that is NOT a statement that it's going to be released EVERYWHERE in Europe. If EA announced it was coming to Europe on September 7, but there were verifiable sources saying it's coming to Spain on the 3rd, these sources do not contradict each other. It's common sense. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They also have Madden NFL 09 as an Xbox 1 game. You go with the primary source: Electronic Arts. I'm trying to figure out why you can't be patient and wait. Oh, and "Asia Pacific" means Japan, etc, and Oceania. Patrick Buechner's already told me Sept 5. (Buechner, the EA VP in charge of Maxis.) Like I said, stores already have Spore.JAF1970 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Buechner does not control EA Australia's decisions on the release date. As a volunteer moderator on the EA AsiaPac site, I have been told numerous times that the retail date for Spore in Australia is Sept 4th (with the digital download release in Australia to follow on Sept 5th). Unless, of course, every single retail outlet in Australia is deliberately misleading the public, and the posters hanging outside EB Games that state '4th September' are completely wrong, and EA Australia has been releasing bogus promotional information. Spik3balloon (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get specific: Buechner is the VP in charge of public relations. He's very aware of release dates. (laugh) He isn't in charge, but it's his job to know everything about Spore's distribution. Globally. So he'd know. JAF1970 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If GameSpot can't be used because of a handful of mistakes you might find, may I ask for you to find a better source? Just want you to know that I'll also hold it up to "one mistake = unreliable", your exclusion criteria. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy. EA Investor site (investor.ea.com). The fact is, the OFFICIAL press release omitted any reference to any Sept 4 release date. JAF1970 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Concrete is posting irrelevent info about Australian stores selling Spore Creature Creature for $2 at Development of Spore. Completely and utterly irrelevent. I didn't post AMazon and Gamespot giving away free copies with Spore preorders because game deals are utterly irrelevent to the article. JAF1970 (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you read what I wrote, I said nothing about stores selling it. The method of distribution in Australia for SCC was with newspaper only, and was/is not on sale here. Hence not irrelevant as it displays a distribution method unique to Australia. Kudos to you on not posting about Amazon and Gamespot, but they are not the same thing.Concretecold (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the Development of Spore? Absolutely nothing. It's completely, utterly irrelevent. I could state "Well, Gamestop and Amazon used a partnership with EA to expedite online distribution and encourage purchases of Spore" but that would be hogwash. It doesn't belong. JAF1970 (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, JAF1970, if you want to suggest a better way of incorporating that information in there I'm happy to listen. I put it there because the preceding sentence is about the distribution as part of the SimCityBox. Hence, I thought it sat well with the release/distribution section. Suggest a better way of incorporating this information rather than just deleting it and running off to the admins and threatening semi-protection. Seriously, I want to see it in there and if you have a good suggestion as to where it should go, please make it. I won't undo your last change, I'll give the option to incorporate it as you would like. Fair?Concretecold (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The SimCity Box was a revelation that there was a Spore Creature Creator _at all_. Had nothing to do with the method of distribution. I may remove that soon, too. JAF1970 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be one of those situations where someone has taken the first step to a peaceful, mutual resolution...perhaps instead of fighting we can incorporate all the information in a mutually acceptable way? (This is the time for being reasonable) Concretecold (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, The SimCity Box was published and distributed by EA. That in itself validates it. JAF1970 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

God, I can't wait til Spore is released so a majority of this can simply go away. JAF1970 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Released on the 4th. There has been more then enough sources to support it. How many sources have you got just the one? Wasgood1 (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother try to convince JAF otherwise. He will only believe the official press release. People could post more reliable sources, and he would find some reason to say they aren't true. When the game is out, I can bet he will do this same stuff I bet. Obviously it wont be about the release date, but it will be about other things. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the goal is not to convince JAF, but to achieve consensus. It appears that there are enough people here to support it. Including you RobJ? Concretecold (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be against JAF, but adding the information to the article (just to have him revert it) is pointless. Edit warring doesn't solve anything. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed, on every level. But the page is protected. The process means that an admin will have to put it there, and no one (other than an admin) will be able to revert it until unprotection. I think. Concretecold (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet, until I've gotten people to speak on my behalf. Again, there's no need to change anything til Sept 7. JAF1970 (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is need to change. There's no need for you to delete content relating to Australia. If you don't live here, JAF1970, I suggest you stop changing it and find other ways to improve the content. Concretecold (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't. What's the rush? JAF1970 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this falls under the heading of the insanity that occurred a year ago when everyone was giving March 3, 2008 the Spore release date because some resellers and people like Kotaku and IGN had 3/3/08 listed. If you can find official Electronic Arts or Maxis information on a third release date for a single country, feel free. JAF1970 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But they do have a point. Spore is being advertised quite prolifically here as the 4th of September, it would seem odd that such a blitz combined with confirmation of the game being shipped would result in an incorrect date. I don't find it similar to the 03/03/08 date because there was nothing to suggest Spore was finished and prepared to ship back then. This hardly counts as "insanity". In any case, it'll be settled on the 4th; if the game is released, then the article must be updated to reflect that.Soldant (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Spore is being advertised quite prolifically here as the 4th of September, Then get an official EA or Maxis press release stating so. Or wait til the 4th and say, "Hey, the stores have it out!" if they're on the shelves. I understand that these sites may be trumpeting a release date -- but they're not getting their info from the people who matter (just as Amazon and other sites with the 3/3/08 release.) Get the official notice, then it's official. JAF1970 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add here :http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/08/spore_oz_release_date_moved_to_september_11.html Wasgood1 (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But there's no link to any EA press release stating it. All it has is an IGN Australia link. Where is the official EA stuff? Like, on Spore.com, EA.com, etc? This is official, from EA itself: The wait is almost over! Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ:ERTS) and Maxis today announced that Spore(TM), the most anticipated video game of the year from the creator of The Sims(TM), has gone gold and will be available for the Mac and PC at retailers September 5 in Europe and September 7 in North America and Asia Pacific. Spore(TM) Creatures for Nintendo DS(TM) and Spore(TM) Origins for mobile phones will also be available globally September 7. I emailed Amanda Taggart at ataggart@ea.com - I plan to just so see if it's real. But until there's an OFFICIAL press release,... JAF1970 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So you have a good rebuttal for all of the Australian Wikipedians who are observing all of the stores advertising the September 4 date? You have one press release that states Asia Pacific, which *drum roll* is not a statement that "every single area in the Asia Pacific region will get this game". If it didn't come out in Iran, does that contradict the "released in Europe" statement? No, because to be released in Europe does NOT mean it has to be released everywhere in Europe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, do you really think an entire country is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? We're not. As for requiring an official press release for something to be considered factual (barring crackpot or conspiracy theories), there was no press release saying the pyramids were completed. Or that the Sistine Chapel was completed. Or that Nathan Buckley was born on the 26th of July. There is information to back these things up, just as there is to back up the Australian release date. Concretecold (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently in the Kotaku link, they claim that EA have confirmed 4th September for Australia. But I'll be a diplomat and side with JAF1970, if only because there's nothing here from EA that unquestionably, and officially states that it is the 4th. However it's looking pretty likely to be the release date. Once there's something that's unquestionably official though, the article needs to be updated. Soldant (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

YSum - EA Asia Pacific (and South Africa) Community and Promotions Manager, 25th August 2008. Spik3balloon (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If the 4th would be right. I would think the official australian Spore or EA Store sites would back on that information but now they both claim it will be released on 7th. Also I would rather believe official sources than second hand sources. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Australian EA Store does not state a release date. And as I said above, as a moderator on the EA AsiaPac site, the release dates that they have are not regularly updated, and are usually incorrect. Spik3balloon (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm trying to figure out how something as small as a release date could be blown so far out of proportion. I think I will leave now, because it is now obvious after 2 separate occasions there will be no consensus reached, even when there is all evidence to the contrary. I used to believe that Wiki worked on a basis of verifiability - JAF is still yet to provide a secondary source to back up the press release, yet still continues with the argument. Spik3balloon (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a way to work it in the article anyway. Something like: There are rumours of a release on the 4th September in Australia. Also, http://www.ebgames.com.au/PC/product.cfm?ID=12154 its changed to the 2nd. I am starting to not trust them.Wasgood1 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just wait until the relevant release dates come to pass, and include the verifiable information then? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. -- Longhair\^talk 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what Wikinews is for. JAF1970 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another example of the release date being the 4th. The thing is, while some game sites may occasionally have differing dates, this is a major advertising campaign with News Limited. EA and News Limited teamed up to do this, EA gaining enormous distribution and coverage and NL shifting more papers due to the discounted Spore content. They have time and time again stated the date as the 4th. They wouldn't get this wrong. As far as official goes, this is about as big as it gets because it is EA in conjuction with one of the country's biggest media companies. concretecold 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's EA's official press release then? I don't trust any source save primary, and I'm waiting for EA PR to get back to me. JAF1970 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the solution: Wait til Sept 4. If it's released in Australia then, feel free to let us know you have your copy. JAF1970 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kotaku post (http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/08/spore_oz_release_date_moved_to_september_11.html) has been updated with a press release. It states the Aus release date as Sept 4th. Hopefully this is enough to end this ridiculous situation.121.44.17.218 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good news, but it just sits there by itself without a link or anything else. Does that still count? In any event, only 4 days to go until it's settled. Soldant (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, why don't you be useful and add content rather than trying to maintain the page in exactly the way you want it? You obviously know a lot about Spore, so make the rest of the page better. There's no need for you to continually delete the Australian information, especially as it doesn't affect you. Everyone else is trying to contribute, and you are trying to stop them. If we were all focussed on contribution rather than deletion the whole system would work much better. You are not winning friends by carrying on the way you are, which is a shame because I'd much rather discuss other aspects of Spore with you as you seem to be quite well informed. Everyone else (including myself several times) has offered a mutually acceptable solution that you shoot down. Please, the next time you write, think of some way we can incorporate the information that is acceptable to both. If we have to put a qualifier in front of it, then lets do that. But it can't just be the "wait until it comes out" solution, as that's what you want and by that stage it is too late to inform people about the upcoming release date. Please, rather than just arguing can you please suggest a middle ground? You have rejected our offers of incorporation, so the ball is now in your court to suggest a solution to end the argument that everyone can live with. I look forward with hope to your suggestion. concretecold 01:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concretecold (talk • contribs)

I don't understand the rush. The problem is that EA's official press release did not list a third release date for a single country. Sept 4 is a few days from now. This is not a news site, this is an encyclopedia article. JAF1970 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And we have reliable sources for September 4, and no specific statement on Australia for your date. If there's one source for Australia and one for Asia Pacific, we do not not use the first source, because being released in Asia Pacific at one date does NOT mean that it's released throughout all of the region on that date. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those sources < Electronic Arts source. Again, I don't understand the rush. JAF1970 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of "source versus source", it's a matter of "source and source". EA source does not, ever, contradict the sources provided, because it doesn't present a contradictory statement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Stating a date for Asia Pacific does not contradict a separate Australian date, even if Australia is sometimes included in Asia Pacific for regional purposes. Everybody completely understands that this is not a news site. But we're not reporting news or presenting it as a news item. Shouldn't this at least be mentioned in some capacity? Soldant (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey it will be released next week so why don't we wait till then and remove the release dates from the article. Skele (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The release dates should never be removed, even after it is released. The Australian release date is not news, it is fact. People should be able to find out this fact by visiting WP. The "rush" to put this factual information is due to the fact that the release information is not as valuable to someone who wants to own Spore after the game has been released. It's like putting up a statement that there was a tornado last night, which is factual and everyone knows about it but it doesn't provide any benefit to the affected people. The warning needs to come before the fact. Just like the factual release dates. JAF, you haven't responded to any opportunities to work together. You are not being collaborative, you are being dictative. Please try to be a team player in the future. We can all learn from your knowledge, and your effort in the page is appreciated, but no one will thank you if you act so stubborn and stand-offish. We're all on the same team here, and we have the same goal. Please, try to act collaboratively. concretecold 07:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fact? It's Sept 4 already and you have a copy? EA has not announced a Sept 4 release date for Australia. In fact, maybe Sept 4 is the ship date (which is not the release date.) JAF1970 (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder: $shipdate\neq releasedate$.JAF1970 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See also: Template:Quotation1

—from WP:VG/DATE. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin here...there has been some discussion on my talk-page about this content. First, please do not continue it there: "consensus" doesn't mean "one admin", and there is no reason to hide the discussion from wider audience. Second, I'll again say what I said there, and hope it sinks in:

WP:CITE from WP:RS is critical. If there is conflicting info from different reliable sources, state each along with who said it. As a tertiary source, WP policy is to report what is reported and leave it to the reader to decide how credible the reported-report is, not to second-guess or choose among different reliable sources ourselves (sin-of-omission or WP:OR). "Verifiability not truth." More importantly, I'm only involved here to kill the edit-war: page protection doesn't establish what is right or endorse any particular content, it merely forces everyone to talk on the talk page to resolve the dispute rationally. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So if there is a disagreement among reliable sources, it is not appropriate for wikipedia editors to pick one as being "more reliable" or "deciding" facts based on contradictory sources: report who said what and leave it at that. Removal of cited info because it doesn't match one editor's view of the world perspective is not appropriate. Repeatedly removing cited info will get you blocked from editing by WP:3RR and WP:OWN. JAF, I am re-adding the info because there is apparent consensus among almost everyone except you that it should be there, and it is reliably cited. DMacks (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to concern of an uninvolved party, I have undone the edit to the disputed content I made after protection. If there is consensus that it should be included or that any other content edits should be made, please discuss below. DMacks (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is absurd. It's just one person demanding everyone listen to what he says, and refusing to acknowledge a significant consensus, the fact that his source does not contradict any sources provided for the release date of 9/4, and the fact that we have provided several reliable sources establishing a release date of the fourth. The fact that JAF refuses to explain why "released in Asia Pacific on the 5th" means "released in every single place that exists in Asia Pacific" shows me that full protection for ONE user edit warring against everyone else is totally unnecessary and arbitrary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch. This. Space. Irrefutable evidence will be provided within the next 24 hours. Have fun until then! concretecold 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concretecold (talk • contribs)

Australian retailers GAME and EB Games are selling the game as we speak. (EB to pre-order customers, GAME as general release) Picture of a customer holding the game, purchased from GAME (Source: OCAU) Wide release expected to be moved forward to tomorrow (2nd Sept) in Australia. Spik3balloon (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction: They are selling as the stock arrives (with couriers currently sending stock from Queensland to other stores around the country) Brisbane stores are selling (source: OCAU above, EA thread. Wide release date push of 2nd Sept still stands. Spik3balloon (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Further sources: Facepunch Studios, Whirlpool. This leaves an interesting question. With the official Australian release date still on Thursday 4th, what does the Wiki release date become? Spik3balloon (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I also got my copy today. I don't know why it was set as the 1st or 2nd, but it should probably be mentioned. Soldant (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I got my copy too! Snagged me the galactic edition. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to maybe help advance the subject (even though I could understand that some already got the game anyways), I've got an official release date in Denmark, for the 4th of September.[1]. It might be in Danish, but the frame on the right of the page is clear enough. 4th of September. I guess EA can be considered a reliable source? Oh, and "Udgivelsesdato" litterally means "release date". Hope that helps. 83.151.154.41 (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Spore.com talks about celebrating launch of the game being Wednesday - with is the 3rd.. I spoke to EA rep, and made sure these were the correct release dates:

• Australia: September 4, 2008
• Europe: September 5, 2008
• Japan: September 5, 2008
• US: September 7, 2008

You also have to mention in the article that the street date was broken on September 1, but not in the infobox.

Keep in mind, I don't do things the internet way - I'm a journalist. I get the info before posting, especially when the date hasn't come up yet. (ie. the former release date on 3/3/08, the "Wii version", etc. JAF1970 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well JAF, as it's definitely out now, how about adding that release date? 202.139.11.11 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the article - anyone could have done it. But I updated the article. Also, it's no longer a "future game". Wow, I can't believe that futuregame template is finally gone. JAF1970 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Keep in mind, I don't do things the internet way - I'm a journalist." Just a little FYI, journalists NEVER report the official story. I read this whole talk subsection and you did nothing but obstruct progress made on the article, and condescendingly so I might add. You are a Wiki editor who is supposed to work with others, not shut out differing opinions. I applaud the others who behaved like adults.F33bs (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mm... he's a journalist on the internet! Just like that guy was a Professor or somesuch right? unsubstantiated claims on the internet makes it true! All this argument really proved is that JAS is an obstinant idiot. 203.110.136.172 (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow...who the hell cares what specific date the game came out on in each different region? I can see MAYBE if someone wanted to find out when it will be released (but in this case, all the senseless arguing has ruined any confidence anyone might have had by coming to this article seeking that info), but once the game is released, the actual release date will be completely irrelevant to the article; a month from now, it would be just as informative to say that the game was released in September 2008 (or even just 2008!); the specific date is not notable. Unbelievable, the size of this talk page over such an insignificant point...

162.136.192.1 (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I am amazed at the stubbornness from one person who purposedly delayed information considered important to at least an entire country, against several people with good sources.

"This is an encyclopedia, not a news site" - Then this page could have been made entirely after the release. If I desire to know when said game will be lauched, I can google and easily find it. But then again, I can do the same to every single content WP has to offer, since it comes from other sources.

Using the "my friend who works at EA and knows it all" excuse to further push his point of view as the only viable source, also, it was clear that both sources did not directly oppose each other, when that in itself is, as said before, "running afoul of WP:NPOV", since he concluded that Asia Pacific also included Australia, when it had been confirmed that that is not always the case. Even with it being said so many times, he simply ignored it and continued to maintain his closed point of view.

Ignoring all and every request for mutual agreement, I do not believe this person, regarding already seen atitude, is fit to be an editor, until such things are corrected.

Such edit warring, and consequent discussion, while being easily avoidable, were pushed forward without any regard at all to the main objective of said article, which was, and still is, to inform viewers.

After pushing his will around, when the sources he so strongly opposed were proved to, in fact, be correct, not a single acknoledgment of his part, of his role, to this whole incident (which was started by him not wanting to recognise other sources which were not directly opposed with his official one).

Also, after summing it up, it is clear that the admin(s) did not manage to cleanly solve this whole mess, and that, due to that "put them closed up in a cage and hope for the best" atitude is, to say the least, lacking in (positive) results.

I am but a WP viewer, not an editor, and I feel my view of WP changing due to this particular incident, not for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.189.62 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Article corrections

• The epic creatures do begin to appear in the Cell phase.
• being a herbivore/carnivore/omnivore at the conclusion of the Cell phase grants your creature a special ebility for each of the subsequent phases (ie. being an herbivore gives you the Siren's Song in the Creature phase.)

We're getting into a dangerous area, tho. Remember, this is not a strategy guide, so you can't discuss, say, the different types of mouths. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Creature section talks about the Cell phase having asexual reproduction. This is incorrect, mating occurs at the cell phase as well. concretecold 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concretecold (talk • contribs)

MAJOR SPOILER! DO NOT READ IF YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THE GAME;

The "Genesis device" is actually called the Staff of Life, and is achieved by reaching the centre of the galaxy. It is the ultimate terraforming tool, but only has 42 uses. The information in the space phase section is outdated. 75.157.104.55 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected this and will continue some corrections to the article now the game has been released.Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 06:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the planet buster called the "Little Doctor"? 75.157.69.196 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't achieved it yet, but it is supposedly called the 'Planet Buster'. ;) Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 06:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Piracy

Stop including items about piracy, because it's not notable - EVERY game gets pirated. JAF1970 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes its true every game gets pirated but some games, like Spore, uses unusual anti-piracy methods like EA chose to use with spore, limiting installations and so on, therefore the fact that Spore is pirated is Notable, and should be included. - Fantact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.4.44 (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

SecuROM is not "unusual" anti-piracy method. It's a software like any other. It's no more notable than other DRM like StarForce. Are we going to mention in every game article when a pirate cracks StarForce? JAF1970 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Games getting pirated despite DRM, that's notable in the DRM article maybe... not here. --TheSeer (Talkˑ

Contribs) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's notable for the SecuROM article. However, unless Electronic Arts actually changes DRM or makes a huge fuss about it, it's not notable. JAF1970 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is notable because the game isn't released yet. It's like when Source engine code got leaked. --Xjk238j (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Every single PC game is pirated before release. Spore is no different. The Source engine leak is completely different, it was a work in progress, nowhere near being finished. Spore was pirated a few days before it's release. Not notable in the slightest. Fin©™ 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So what if it was pirated a few days before it was released. Many games have been pirated many weeks before they had been released. Skele (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If the DRM of this particular game itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the article, so should the failure of it be. By the statements of those opposing mentioning piracy, failure of DRM isn't noticable because it happens to all DRM. By that logic, this particular DRM isn't noticable itself, since practically all games have DRM. If we're talking about a type of DRM that is extraordinary in some way, the failure of it would, by definition, by extraordinary too.

The sources make it notable. If the reliable sources don't talk about the piracy, we don't talk about it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this source notable enough for you? Spore's Piracy Problem - Forbes.com. Notable exerpts include:

Electronic Arts (nasdaq: ERTS - news - people ) had hoped to limit users to installing the game only three times through its use of digital rights management software, or DRM. But not only have those constraints failed, says Garland [Big Champagne Chief Executive Eric Garland], they may have inadvertently spurred the pirates on.

On several top file-sharing sites, "Spore"'s most downloaded BitTorrent "tracker"--a file that maps which users had the game available for downloading--also included step-by-step instructions for how to disassemble the copy protections, along with a set of numerical keys for breaking the software's encryption. For many users, that made the pirated version more appealing than the legitimate one.

DRM only limits the ability of consumers who wouldn't typically pirate media to make copies or share it with friends and family, agrees Big Champagne's Garland. But because encryption is so easily broken by savvier--and more morally flexible--users, it does little to stop the flood of intellectual property pirated over the Internet, he contends.

"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better," he says. "It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."

Forbes.com is about as reliable a source as one could ever find. If they're reporting on piracy and, ostensibly, the failure of SecuROM's DRM model to protect Spore and even provoke greater levels of piracy; I'd say that makes this subject notable. SecuROM is a collosal failure and the experts are talking about it; by the logic above, it looks like we get to talk about it as well after all. Braidedheadman (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• While forbes is a reliable source, those little excerpts show some pretty limited understanding on their part, and frankly its downright inaccurate. also included step-by-step instructions for how to disassemble the copy protections, along with a set of numerical keys for breaking the software's encryption. This is infact not remotely what the pirated version includes. It includes an already cracked exe and keys to allow the game to install, not instructions for dissembling the copy protection or breaking "encryption".--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your motives are for demanding reliable sources and then taking a defensive stance when one finally shows up. But if you are going to criticize Forbes' coverage of the material and claim that their understanding of the situation is "limited" or "frankly downright inaccurate", kindly practice what you preach and state YOUR sources. Also, let's not stand on semantics here, as that only confuses the issue; while the documents included in the torrent may not teach "Piracy & Homemade Cracks 101", they do provide instructions for removing that game's specific DRM software using the tools provided in the torrent package.Braidedheadman (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• The motives are to ensure all material in the article complies with WP:V far too often people want to use wikipedia as a soapbox to make some point or grind an axe because of some issue they have with the subject. At some point someone mentioned there was encouragement on the part of a couple different forums for people to go out and slam spore for DRM issues. Wikipedia is a natural extension of that, which means editors have to scrutinize edits and sources even more closely than normal. As for Forbes being a reliable source, newspapers are not always considered a reliable source or some things. For example medical articles (especially on medical studies) don't consider the papers reliable as they often exaggerate or outright mislead readers about various aspects of these studies. Forbes may establish notability of the subject, but given their clear misunderstanding of subject in this article, I would be cautious about using it as a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I can respect that. However, you have once again indicated that the article has shown "a clear misunderstanding of the subject" without stating what exactly, if anything, might be misunderstood and have neglected to show documentation of your own to support your claim. It's one thing to say that people can't make Claim_X where Document_X doesn't meet with Wikipedia's WP:LOP or where Claim_Y based on CommonKnowledge_Y hasn't been substantiated by a reputable source (WP:V vs WP:The Truth - that essay is a hoot, lol :p) and is, therefore, inadmissible as I have noticed you have often done in a number of places on this talk page. It's quite another to assert that the material covered in a document from a reputable source is unreliable without supporting documents of like kind, grade, and quality. Double standards aren't going to work too well here. Or are you suggesting that we need another reputable source with expert opinion to establish the reliability of the Forbes article? Finally, and this may be a little pedantic of me but, Forbes is not a newspaper. Braidedheadman (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Evaluating sources is different than including material in the article. In this case Forbes commenting on the pirated version on the internet has opened the door to a primary source. I'm sure you can easily compare the primary source and the Forbes article to decide whether or not you feel they've correctly portrayed what is available. The article can still be used as citation. I simply said caution should be used in citing specific facts from the article. It can still be used to cite notability of that aspect of the subject, other claims should be taken with a grain of salt. We don't blindly include information from a reliable source if there is any doubt about it. Like the medical studies I pointed out above. If you can compare forbes to the primary source, and feel that what they wrote accurately describes the situation, then feel free to use the source.--Crossmr (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Forbes should be notable enough, but stick with what the article says; don't draw any conclusions or make any interpretations. 'ostensibly, the failure of secuROM' is making an interpretation on what the article says and would not be a legitimate addition to the article. Best to be cautious about contentious topics. Dp76764 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Are you trying to say that we can safely conclude that SecuROM's software is a stunning success? Whatever the case, I was not inferring any personal conclusions or interpretations of any kind. On the contrary, the jury is in, ladies and gentlemen, and the verdict has been delivered. Forbes went to the experts and they concluded - quite naturally in my opinion - that Spore's DRM has indeed failed to protect its assets from piracy. Read the article. By quoting them or choosing different words to deliver the same message, we aren't drawing any conclusions that haven't already been made by those who are both qualified and in a position to make those sorts of conclusions already. This is neither personal opinion nor original research; these are facts straight from the mouths of experts in their respective fields and delivered to us by a reputable source. Indeed, I would suggest that the only ones drawing conclusions here are those who now feel, for whatever reason, threatened by this news. As Crossmr said, it's fine to include the content provided by 3rd party expert opinions.Braidedheadman (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes thats right, we do have to be careful in the words we chose though as the alternative words. While some words might have similar meanings, they can in practice mean vastly different things. A puddle and a lake are both bodies of water, but one is of a magnitude far larger.--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Noted. Braidedheadman (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• We can't make conclusions or interpret on our own. However if 3rd party sources do it , then it is fine for us to include it. We're just including what the reliable sources have said in this case. There is no problem there.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Source/Half-Life 2 was a major story because HL2 wasn't even half-finished, Source engine was completely new. JAF1970 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The DRM has made Spore the most pirated game ever. Go EA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.66.45 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots will need updated

I noticed in a lot of the screenshots its showing an older interface. They should either be removed or updated as they're no longer representative of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Civ and Space pics updated. JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Higher resolution screenshots would also be nice... Ruppetus (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I think that even though there are 5 effectively different games, it is going to be a tough argument to justify as many screenshots as there are for this article (per WP:NFCC. The creature editor, at worst, needs to stay, but there should be consideration of what five stages are adequetely represented via text and what needs a picture (Tribe phase, for example, is fine via text, I would argue the same for Creature and Civ phases; the Space stage looks like many 4X games, so also many not be necessary). (Alternatively, if someone knows someone at Maxis and can get them to allow images per Ubisoft, that might make it easier). --MASEM 13:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Source clean-up

I'm doing some clean-up of some of the sources in the article. Most are good but over time some sources which fail WP:V have crept in there. With that many sources and that size of an article its hard to keep an eye on all of them. Remember things like wikis, blogs, forums, etc don't pass WP:V and can't be used to source information unless they're a "blog" in name only. Many reliable sources like magazines have blog sections but give the content editorial oversight just like any other article in their publication.--Crossmr (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone should also change "Chris Harris" to "Cliff Harris" in the DRM section. The article mentions a "Cliff". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.168.219 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

DRM problems

I have bought the retail game. Can't validate my serial number against EA's server. Called EA customer support. "The servers are under to much stress, please try later". Wonder if this is a widespread problem. I can play the pirated version without problem. The retail does not work. Great work EA! Wish to have help updating this article about stupid DRM that EA fails to support. Realshompa (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the relevant policy at WP:V. In short all content added to wikipedia must be verifiable via a reliable source. Things like anecdotal evidence, blogs, forums, etc don't pass the threshold because anyone can write and say anything. We rely on publications that have editorial oversight and fact checking as well as primary sources where the source is talking about itself. In this case a reliable source would have to write about the DRM problems or EA would have to make an official statement.--Crossmr (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You also might not want to go around telling people you engage in "less-than-legal" activities. Unless of course, you live in Sweden or something. You might get lawyer-raped by certain litigious companies, hehe. But chances are that with the level of DRM in Spore, they somehow identifying that you had previously installed a pirated version of the game. That may come from experience, but I'm not admitting anything. Zell65 (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and since EA's trying to sweep all this under the rug and keep it hush-hush, nothing but blogs and forums are going to cover the entire fiasco with the DRM... So what? Nobody can put it on Wikipedia, then? Ridiculous. It's sad when something that everyone knows to be true can't be put on the article simply because someone like CNN hasn't run the story. Fact remains that the blogs are more accurate than Wikipedia on this subject. Someone already took out the 3-install limit because it didn't have "relevant sources"... So let's just keep everyone in the dark. GermanShepherd (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that DRM didn't have anything to do with the validating problem. It was a bug on the server side that caused all of that there was nothing wrong in the install or it didn't have anything to do with the DRM. People just like to blame everything on the DRM as they think they really know how it works and what it really effects. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that, in a weird moment of "shoe on the other foot", I now realize why Wikipedia has such strict rules regarding what is and is not a valid source... I had someone tell me something they thought was a "common truth", and I didn't believe them and I asked for where they learned this co called common truth, and then I realized what I'd done. Just wanted to apologize for my previous statement. GermanShepherd (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it above in the "Piracy" section, but any argument that states the DRM discussion can't proceed because there are no notable/reliable sources is now at an end. Forbes.com is covering this subject with this article, Spore's Piracy Problem, and I suggest you all give it a read and reevaluate whether or not Spore's failed DRM and its effect on legit consumers and pirates alike are indeed worth mentioning in the Wiki. Braidedheadman (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I included the Washington Post article reference to the pirate download problem at the end of the DRM section before reading the discussion. Sorry if I threaded on some toes... Andargor (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The source is fine, just clean up the text a little bit. "On its way to being the most pirated game of all time" and "one of the most pirated games" is not really the same thing and the second one uses WP:WEASEL words.--Crossmr (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Re-worded to be closer to the source meaning, and tried to be less of a weasel ^^ . Feel free to make any other adjustments if necessary. Andargor (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

frequent crashes noteworthy?

i guess we'll have to wait til a "verifiable source" mentions it, but if you look at the official british spore sub-forum on the EA forums it seems that the game has quite a few problems with crashing and looking for a non-existent driver. i'd add something about it to the article, but the article is protected and i'm sure that my addition would get deleted for being "original research" or something.99.153.29.112 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources and cannot be used to cite material on wikipedia. If Maxis makes a statement or reliable sources start writing about it then it can be included.--Crossmr (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

which is why i said "i guess we'll have to wait til a verifiable source mentions it".99.153.29.112 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The GameSpot review says that the game "ran smoothly at the highest settings without a single crash", and the IGN (US) reviewer said "it ran smoothly on my admittedly high-end system, and it was rock-solid stable, never crashing. I can't even think of a single bug", but IGN UK said "the total lack of an autosave is infuriating and bewildering in this kind of game. It's not a huge issue in the early, briefer stages, but a random, one-off crash during the space stage cost us four hours of progress. There were tears." I haven't read every Spore review out there, but I haven't yet seen a big-name reviewer dealing with a consistent crash either. A stickypoll in those UK forums says that the problems are mainly in the Space stage. --an odd name 21:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah if you look at those forums now there's several pages of "game crashes randomly" and "game won't run". i can't wait til US consumers get a chance to not play the game lol. oh yeah and there's this to: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/spore-technical-support/335538-ea-do-something-about.html currently it only has 189 votes, but all but 17 of them are in favor of EA releasing a patch to fix the errors. 99.153.29.112 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I picked up the game recently, so far i haven't had a few problems except for random frame rate jitters and I fixed that perfectly..I feel lucky.209.169.244.29 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

when i tried to move from tribal stage to civilization stage the game crashed, every time i tried to move on to the civ stage it just dumped me back out to the desktop, however i was able to start a game in civ phase on another planet and that planet is currently a space faring civilization and i have not had any problems with the game since. and on the first planet my chieftain had been abducted midway through the tribal stage and i never got a new one, so i'm thinking that may be part of the problem (although i can't be sure) i guess i'll find out when i get a second planet through tribal stage. the funny thing is, according to my system specs i shouldn't even be able to run the game, but so far i've only had it crash on that one part.99.153.29.112 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The space phase (the last phase you don't get to after several hours game play) frequently crashes, I've been playing the space phase for about 10 hours and had at least 20 crashes so far. All the crashes occurred when you are zooming in on a solar system and for those who don't know, that's basically all you do when you're trading, building an empire or protecting it. It's how you get around. The reason EA Games isn't stating there is a problem is because then we CAN post it here and less people purchase the game. I submitted a support request and an automated response stated, and I quote: "Due to the recent release and amazing popularity of Spore, we are experiencing higher than normal e-mail volume." I love how they turn ZOMG overwhelming support requests into ZOMG our game RULES! As a side note my computer is quite good, quite expensive and running XP without overclocking. No other problems. As a side note the help that comes with the DVD version of Spore tells you do run certain things that it never installed, for instance under the heading of "Electronic_Arts_Technical_Support.htm" -> "Crashing After a Full Black Screen" "Click the Check for Update or Auto-Update icon (This will force the game to check for updates.)" and please note it never installed that icon. 207.224.26.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

I've played it probably around 20 hours and haven't had a single crash. This is why anecdotal evidence can't be used in articles.--Crossmr (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you been playing the space phase for 20 hours actively zooming to and from planets?207.224.26.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Yes I have. How else could you play the space age? I've played 2 species to the space age, the first one for about 5 hours in the space age, the other one for about 15. In that time I've terraformed tons of planets, done a lot of eradication missions, improved a lot of planets, lots of zooming. Not a single crash.--Crossmr (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got the DVD version from Amazon.com, a Geforce 8600GT, an Intel Duo processor and running the fully upgraded/patched version of XP. I don't have problems like this in any other game and I far exceeds the minimum specifications. I have seen numerous complaints about crashing as well (just noticed a few that suggest I kill the EA Download Manager so I'll try that next).67.42.234.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

Looks like the crashes no longer occur, 10 hours of game play without a single crash. Looks like they found the error and fixed it for now. 70.56.195.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

I've been watching the technical forum very closely since Spore came out and helping people with problems I see recurrently. (Username Ryuujin on the forum), and I can tell you spore is extremely buggy game, I have not suffered any really serious errors but I have still encountered no less than 8 (some game breaking) issues firsthands. Common problems include the graphics cache generated from the data files becoming corrupted forcing the player to reset the cache manually. Spore only has a single savegame file, and it routinely gets corrupted on some less stable computer configurations so people often lose their entire game unless they manually back up the save game (Stored in the documents and settings folder, not even accessible if you lack admin level access to the PC), there is several recurrent game breaking bugs; most notable occurs VERY regularly where the players Shaman character in tribal phase is rendered uncontrllable preventing any non-violent conclusions to the phase. While these bugs arn't reeeallly any more numerous when in put into eprspectvie than any other new release, most these features of Spore have been functional since the 2005 demonstration and you'd think 3 years was plenty of time to iron out such obvious and easy to find bugs. Ryuujin --85.62.18.8 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats anecdotal evidence and unfortunately not reliable and can't be used to create content in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There Should Be A Controversy Section

Spore Uses secuROM which essentially makes your DVD game into a coaster if you have to install it 3 times and this should be in here if we want to seem impartial rather than looking like an advertisement for the game ChesterTheWorm (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

We can't add content that reliable sources don't create. See WP:SOAPBOX and WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the comments which can be viewed on amazon.com at the very least verify that there is a real public outcry and boycott going on right now. I would not be suprised to see that initial sales of this game are dramatically lower than projected. 66.218.235.199 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. User comments are not reliable. Anyone can write anything, and they are not checked for accuracy. Nothing individually created unless the individual is an expert in the field is considered reliable.--Crossmr (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you run out of installs, a quick call to EA customer support should fix it. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the customer support a toll line that charges you more than $2 per minute or something though? I can't find their support number nor fee rate on the US site but that's what some of the other sites say. 71.170.196.194 (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There will still be grounds for a controversy section, for several reasons.

• A lot of people are going to be affronted that the product they paid for and physically own requires someone else's approval to function, regardless of how smoothly the approval goes. Still others will see such requirements as part of a slippery slope of DRM with potentially devastating consequence for computing and online freedom, and totally flip out.
• Spore has more target countries than there are EA hotlines. Long-distance and international calls are potentially expensive and time-consuming, especially if customer support is a toll line as seventy-one says, adding non-trivial cost and effort to playing the game.
• Other games with such DRM mechanisms have had problems giving the users their validations. At the moment, things seem to be going wrong badly enough for EA to give out the line "We are aware of the problem and are working on a solution."
• Problems will ensue if the support staff is not consistently fast, effective and fluent in all of the many languages of the callers.
• Securom breaks its users' things, though not as often or as badly as Starforce.
• All of the above will be made considerably worse if they are not clearly spelled out on the game box.

We still some reliable data, but that's just a matter of time. Hope that helps. --Kizor 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Until a reliable source begins reporting on it it is a violation of WP:NPOV to create such a section.Also familiarize yourself with WP:V if you wish to restore content that was removed for lacking a citation the burden of proof is on you to provide that citation. Restoring it with a tag is not an acceptable alternative. The only grounds for a controversy section is when reliable sources write articles and content criticizing the subject. Not when an individual has an issue with a subject.--Crossmr (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with listing the reasons why there will be reliable sources reporting on DRM controversy? --Kizor 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I should have made 2 separate comments. My comment about WP:V was to your article edit where you restored unsourced information stating it would be easier to find a citation that way. As for the reasons why reliable sources will be reporting on DRM, don't count on it. A lot of games experience "player uproars" in the forums. Rarely do anything outside of barely notable weblogs report on it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Using unreferenced but factually accurate statements together with a "citation needed" tag is good enough by my standards - especially if it's going to be temporary - but I won't contest your more rigorous ones.
We'll certainly get references for the technical facts. Referencing the public reaction will be trickier and require some fancy footwork, but I'm confident that well be able to do it, especially since it has now turned out that EA refrained from informing buyers of an account limit. --Kizor 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some sources: [2], [3]. 85.5.187.219 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wired is speaking in future tense and is a blog from an author only identifiable by a gmail address. He's not speaking of an existing controversy he's theorizing that there will be one. So assuming its reliable, its still only a theory, no evidence of one. The gamesindustrybiz one is from an author in which we can get no info except his name and picture, and the about page discusses nothing about their editorial oversight, simply referring to the site as a business networking tool which makes me question where the articles are coming from. Are they being written by journalists and edited or are these just random articles from random people with no oversight.--Crossmr (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Wired source points to Eurogamer, which is reliable. I'd throw caution to the gamesindustrybiz one simply as it is summing up the Amazon.com comments. However, that said, there needs to be more about the DRM to create a controversy or other section about it. A fraction of gamers hate DRM - that's a fact, and nothing different in Spore's case, thus the usual DRM nay-sayers aren't something to report on. The DRM needs to have a technical or sales impact in order to be mentioned - see how BioShock deals with that issue as there are technical faults on the DRM that made it a huge issue. So far, I've only seen people disappointed that Spore has DRM but that's true of every game so its nothing special here. --MASEM 12:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And regardless of any of that, no good article was ever written that had a "controversy" section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The eurogamer source doesn't mention a controversy, which was kind of my point. It simply reports the guys statements. The wired blog then theorizes that that will create a controversy in the future. So there is no evidence that one exists. The only thing that is evidence of is some random blogger who we can't get any info about thought 3 weeks ago there would be a controversy.--Crossmr (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any point of view or source issues it is entirely relevant and verifiable that a user sponsored crusade/protest to exists to give the game poor reviews on amazon.com and that this is a protest against the DRM in the game. I see no reason that this article can not include this very relevant information without running afoul of wiki policies and style. 24.248.56.59 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is no "regardless of pov or source issues" excuse for adding something. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Dp76764 (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User revolt over DRM

Not sure what the policy on references is, but Ars Technica has a story covering the recent protests on Amazon.com's review page related to the SecuRom DRM software and it's policies. Here is a link to the story: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-gamers-fight-back-against-lackluster-spore-gameplay-bad-drm.html It sounds, to me, like a note-worthy issue to mention but, again, I don't know if Ars Technica qualifies as a good source. Someone more knowledgeable than me should make that decision and, if acceptable, should craft a sentence/paragraph describing the issue, Thanks. -colecoman1982 12.32.89.121 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The author of the peice is Ben Kuchera, a Journalist who writes for the Washinton Post and ABC News amongst others. His work is already used as reference in 20 other Wikipedia articles. Condé Nast Publications owns Ars Technica and this site is currently used as reference in 343 Wikipedia Articles. Given that so many references already exist from this source I would say that this would make a relivent source for this article. However, maybe someone else may think differently. Munta (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While this hasn't been picked up by any reputable sources that I can find yet, Amazon UK appear to be sporadically removing bad reviews from the Spore page. Weather blatent preasure from EA or just misdirected management on Amazons behalf, its only a matter of time before this gets picked up. This is begining to look like a potential PR disaster for EA. Watch this space Munta (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch this space? Wikipedia is WP:NOT a lot of things, including a soapbox, a news paper, or a vehicle for social change.--Crossmr (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And this is why I placed it in the talk page. This is an ongoing and evolving situation so i'm just giving a heads up to people of information that may warrent inclusion in this article in the near future. Munta (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

'a protest was "staged"' Why use the word staged? That makes it sound like this was planned. Is it verified as a planned protest? I was under the impression that it was more of a flash-mob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.4.22 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just found some articles on Yahoo, not sure if they are from a good source. First one is about a possible patch to sort out the DRM http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-ea-to-ease-spore-s-drm-restrictions-e870a33.html and the other is about user created creatures protesting about the DRM http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080916/ttc-spore-fans-in-uproar-create-drm-prot-e870a33.html I am new so I will let others decide if the information is useful for the article 205.204.2.15 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just been on the spore website and a patch is out, only for PC so far, no sign of the drm patch in my links above though Dark verdant (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

92% of 2100 Amazon reviews: one star

Just thought I'd point out the poor reviews it's accumulating on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FKBCX4 -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's what happens when there's a grassroots campaign to raise an issue. May become notable if it breaks a record for 'most negative reviews solely for the purpose garnering attention' and gets reported on by Verifiable and reliable sources. Dp76764 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• with all due respect, do you have any proof that the amazon score is solely a result of people trying "garner attention" and whether they don't just hate the game? Check the metacritic user reviews and they're not too different. Whether it's a knee jerk reaction or not a lot of people didn't like this game. Also the current "Reception" section doesn't illustrate this at all, just states positive reviews. 86.134.17.137 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, 'user reviews' aren't something that can (or should) be considered for a Wikipedia article. As for Amazon, if you read the reviews, it's pretty clear that it's a campaign (thus seeking attention) against the DRM solution used (I don't disagree with them, but this doesn't mean we can include this in the article yet). Dp76764 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, the game is currently the best-selling game on Amazon.com. Gary King (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It only becomes notable if a reliable source reports on it and gives it coverage. Trying to interpret it is original research.--Crossmr (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been getting quite a bit of coverage. Just google "spore drm" and you will get quite a few sites that have been covering it 65.12.159.223 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 65.12.159.223, here's just a small list of notable sources referencing it:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-gamers-fight-back-against-lackluster-spore-gameplay-bad-drm.html

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/amazon-users-slam-spore-drm

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2329934,00.asp

Dark dude (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

4chan and GameFAQs seem to be going off a lot at the game regarding it being overhyped, there isn't much controversy over the DRM any more. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just thought i'd point out that Canada.com has, albeit minor, coverage of the amazon.com 1 star ratings... "Canada.com Games is the premiere source of video game news in Canada. The site is edited by Alex Blonski." - As far as reporting the event and giving it coverage, this source may help. -- "http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/gamesnews/archive/2008/09/08/drm-protesters-sink-spore-reviews.aspx" (also, quite sorry if I did not post this properly or in the correct spot, quite new at this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.226.158 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The BBC has picked up this story, it should be added to the DRM section of the main page as a citation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7604405.stm Kodath (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the 'reception' segment at the beginning of this article may be looking for sources that pop up here, and vice versa, on user reception for more than just DRM. Scribblette (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Basis

This entire section, while fairly well written and fairly well researched, has no business being in this article. Theoretical discussions of genetic evolution algorithms and the popularity of those in videogaming has little to do with this game, at least in the scope of a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.161.34 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was well written and interesting, but I think the entire section could be summed up by saying "Its a game and they took some scientific 'leaps' to make it playable". It happens all the time. If a movie is based on a true story, you would expect there are changes and leaps made for the sake of narrative. Also true for games based on science, they had to gloss over a few things for the sake of it being a game. I don't think its inclusion makes it a better article.198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That text is even full of mistakes as he thinks DNA is the parts you get in the game when the DNA is what you get from food in the game and parts are what you get from other creatures and bones. It also sounds more of a rant of one individual and quite frankly it doesn't have any real meaning other than they claimed they are partly scientific when on his opinion they weren't at all. If he really thinks it doesn't have even slight scientific basis then he is totally mistaken as there is several scientific theories used. Also the game never stated it was totally scientificly accurate. The section is not needed and just makes the bio longer with information that can be said in one sentence. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from the other article as well. it violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In case it comes in handy later, and because it is an intriguing bit of work, this looks like it's the section in question. --Kizor 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, is it really fair to include the word "evolution" (as in "control the evolution of a species") in the lead? Frankly, I think that sends a bad message to less educated readers who don't know what the theory of evolution is. I have a real fear that spore is going to cause rather alot of damage to the scientific side of the evolution/ID war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playwrite (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's as fair to use the word 'evolution' in Spore as it is to use 'World War II' in the game Day of Defeat. The topic matter is addressed, but I doubt anyone will believe evolution happens like it happens in spore any more than someone would believe that Omaha Beach was fought by two teams of 12 respawning combatants. Games take liberties with reality to make it fun, people should understand that. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have heard people complaining this game as a work of intelligent design. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that there isn't any reasonable level of debate about WWII and its many facets. on the other hand, evolution is under attack and it is dishonest to mislead a public that by and large doesn't understand the theory into thinking that it occured in this manner. I'm just saying :) Playwrite (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC) It's dishonest to mislead the public into thinking that any evolution even occurs in this game. The lead needs to change, unless either a) someone has an actual reference for use of the word evolution or b) nobody can think of a better word. Leushenko (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

how about "development"? I think that makes more sense.

Actually, there ARE elements of evolution in the game, but neither of the 2 main principles (random mutation and survival of the fittest) is really present. At most one could say that Spore includes the basic idea of life developing from basic stages to extremely advanced ones. Unfortunately, it doesn't even handle that well, since sweeping changes frequently occur within a single generation. Playwrite (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, If no one objects I am going to change the word "evolution to "development" in the lead. I'll come back in 12 hours or so and do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playwrite (talk • contribs) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

if the game claims evolution that is what we have to go with. To claim otherwise without reliable sources is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV--Crossmr (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be to difficult to find a reliable source questioning its relationship to evolution. would that violate any rules? (NOTE: someone changed the word, just to be clear that was NOT me)Playwrite (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find a source you can say that some reviewers/journalists dispute this usage. As for it being changed, evolution is still in the lead.--Crossmr (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversial (DRM section)

From the OED : "Controversial: Subject to controversy; open to discussion; debatable, questionable; disputed." Is this not a factual and accurate description of the situation? Critics on one side, supporters on the other, debate ongoing. Why is this word presenting a problem for some editors of this article? It's not like I'm putting it in the lead paragraph. Skyraider (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Doesn't matter if it's an accurate description of the situation, unfortunately. Also, as soon as you start adding adjectives onto something, you start risking running afoul of WP:NPOV. Just $0.02. Dp76764 (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hence the link immediately following the word "controversial", to an article at the BBC (a notable source) describing the situation. (i.e. VERIFYING that controversy exists) How is it POV to use the word "controversial" to describe something that is the subject of controversy according to a notable source? Skyraider (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

just because its controversial around spore, doesn't mean its consider controversial everywhere. The way you wrote it made it sound as though securom is simply known as a controversial drm scheme. Which may or may not be true, but its not covered in the BBC article.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Go and look at the page SecuROM. Note the rather obvious history of controversy. Verify this if you must. It is clearly controversial. 217.154.153.2 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also note that the SecuROM article is mostly unsourced and uncited. So, using that article as an excuse doesn't hold much weight. Dp76764 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What is up with Crossmr?, who is he?--->Cant he see there is grounds for coverage for this controversy <--I said it!*Controversy* Paying $50-$80 for a game you're essentially renting is controversial It does not have to be on CNN,BBC,ABC,DEFG to get put it, we all know there is a controversy here ChesterTheWorm (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Please familiarize yourself with WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV editors cannot insert judgments and other opinions in the text of articles on wikipedia. In addition to this you may wish to read WP:NPA and keep your comments about the content and not other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys have an odd definition of controversy. Controversy means people are arguing about it in the press, not that people don't like it. So 1) the term is in no way POV, although it might be inaccurate, and 2) if it's actually controversial there should be no shortage of references. The idea of a controversy that can't be adequately referenced is self-contradictory. Leushenko (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible PR Nightmare

Guys, I would be on the lookout for a concerted PR campaign and/or vandalism - Amazon has just deleted all of Spore's reviews (which, as you all know, were mostly one-starred protests), and I predict backlash to arise as a result. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

AKA "Business as usual." But thanks for the heads-up. :) --Kizor 20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly it was a "glitch": [4]. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that what it's called nowadays? Neat!
The article is fully protected at present so there's not a lot we can do to further combat vandalism, but telling us to be on alert for whitewashing is an interesting point. Such things do happen on Wikipedia, even if EA doesn't seem to be one of the more likely companies to astroturf us. If there is such an effort and we deflect it, who's up for pissing off a De Beers PR team next? --Kizor 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They've been restored. I can feel the pitchforks already been lowered. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Phase - Genesis

The reference to Project Genesis under the Space phase is a reference to Star Trek II Wrath of Khan, not Hitchhiker's Guide, as is reflected by the link.

Can someone update the text to match the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.192.74 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The number 42 is a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide, as is the majority of the dialogue in the cutscene at the centre of the galaxy. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To which a reliable source has to make that connection. Interview, developer comments on the extra DVDs, etc. While very likely, for us to draw that conclusion without a reliable source doing it, its WP:OR.--Crossmr (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Information in the Gameplay Section

There are some incorrect bits in the gameplay section, and as the article appears to be under a lock-down (i.e. I cannot edit it), I'll mention them here.

Firstly, in the Civilization section,

When the player becomes technologically advanced enough, the UFO editor appears.

The editor actually appears when the player has taken over every city in the world. The technology aspect of the Civilization phase had been removed completely before Spore went Gold.

Secondly, in the Space section,

Players can make contact with other civilizations, called 'empires', most of which are created by other players. Intelligent species can be found, and when the UFO visits that world, they may impress the beings with fireworks, attack them with weapons, or try to establish a language with the civilization via a Close Encounters of the Third Kind-styled musical mini-game. The player may beam down a holographic image of his/her creature to interact more directly with an alien species.[27] A user-created civilization's AI reacts depending on its behavior and personality, both of which are based on the play-style of its user. The player can unite or conquer the galaxy by creating a federation or sparking an interstellar war. As a show of great force, the player may even completely destroy a planet (similar to the capabilities of the Death Star from Star Wars), which may bring retribution from that species and its allies. The player is sometimes called upon to fight off an invasion of their home planet, colony, or an ally's planet, from space pirates, environmental collapse, or attack from enemies.[48]

I don't know about the validity of the second sentence with regards to pre-space-faring creatures, as I have not advanced far enough in the game to tell, but when dealing with space-faring creatures, one generally interacts with them directly using a Civilization-like diplomacy panel.

I don't know if those are all the errors, but those are at least some of them.--Scyldscefing (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I made most of the edits in regards to this paragraph, but I left in the part about the minigame until I progressed far enough. Now I know that this doesn't actually happen ingame and the only way to 'raise up' a primitive species is via the monolith. The fireworks are available in the Socialization panel, like you said, and there is no need to establish a common language as you have a universal translator. I will fix this. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Phase - Genesis Device II

So with only being able to use the device 42 times in this phase, do I then have to contact EA Customer support to have them reset my in-game use limit when it has been depleted? Will this be a standard procedure or will they do it on a case by case basis? Hehe :p (Bobbo9000 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, ask to speak to Steve.--12.21.161.34 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought he told you to use it wisely. Therefore, you have broken the EULA on the Genesis Device and cannot claim another one. Good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.66.45 (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Spore Galactic Edition Contents

The detail in the wiki page listing the Galactic Edition contents is not accurate for all countries - some countries are missing some contents. Australian users found out after purchase that their copies of the Galactic Edition did not (and were never going to) contain the "How to Build a Better Being" DVD due to "licensing restrictions" for the documentary. When queried about the missing DVD, EA Games Australia have stated that this DVD is for the USA/Europe releases only, and that users should have contacted EA Games Australia directly by email to ask whether the contents of the Galactic Edition in Australia would be the same as elsewhere rather than relying on the official game website (despite the "Australia" link on the front page). The Australian EA Games site has never listed the Galactic Edition in their localised website, so there was no localised information about the missing content available prior to purchase - a questionable omission with the false advertising/misleading advertising laws in Australia.

The EA Games New Zealand site does list the Galactic Edition, and the "How to Build a Better Being" dvd is not listed as part of the contents for New Zealand either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.195.174 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

General Article Updates

Now that the game is out, there seem to be many discrepancies between what we were told we were getting, and what we have. This is my first-hand experience from playing this game.

Gameplay:

“If all of a player's creations are completely destroyed at some point, then that player's species goes back to the beginning of that level, or the last viable point in species development.” – Now that the game is released, this does not seem to be the case. Every death seems to place you back at your safe spawn point (nest, main hut, capital city, etc) with no time shift. To clarify, if an enemy ship destroys you over your capitol city, you will respawn in the same location to continue fighting.

Interplay:

“My Sporepage” – This is actually called the MySpore Page, and can be seen on the left side of the screenshot within the article.

“Via the in-game "My Sporepage", players receive statistics of how their creatures are faring in other players' games, which has been referred to as the "alternate realities of the Spore metaverse." The game reports to the player on how other players interacted with them (for example, how many times other players destroyed a copy of their planet).” – This may have been left out in the initial release. The only thing that resembles this is that the game will report the actions of people on your Buddy list. This list is very limited, however, and only shows approximately 10, with no way to view older messages.

Phases:

“There is a difficulty selector to each stage, allowing players to choose the difficulty for each part of the game.[23]” – This selection is only available when starting a new game. It is not selectable at any other time for that creature.

Cell:

“The player may also encounter Epic Creatures.” – Has this been verified, other than in the talk page? I have yet to run into any Epic cell creatures, that I know of.

“The creature's behavior directly influences its role in the creature stage, and only parts that are fitting for that creature's evolution will become available.[13]” – This doesn’t belong under Cell, since there are no parts restrictions in the cell phase. The creature phase, however, will limit only your mouth choice (Carnivore, Omnivore, or Herbivore) based on how you played through the Cell phase.

“The ocean floor becomes more prominent, and the creature editor interrupts, requesting the user add legs.” – None of the game phases are ever interrupted by progression. Once you finish the goals set forth by the phase, you have the option to click on the Advance button or continue to play the phase until you’re ready to move on.

Creature:

“Once the creature becomes intelligent, the game progresses to the tribal phase.” – As with the Cell phase, the game allows progress to the next phase, but the player is free to stay in the Creature phase as long as they wish.

Also, not sure where to add this (maybe under player created content), but at some point during your Creature game, you will likely run into, or rather run away from, someone else’s space craft.

Tribal:

“Creatures also gain the option to wear clothes that demarcate their professions.[37]” – This has apparently been removed from the game, since you can only design one Tribal/Civilization outfit for the entire race to wear.

“Domesticated creatures seem to undergo neoteny in contrasting photos of the same species.[41]” – The only differences in the domesticated creatures is that the Rogue creatures form the creature phase are shrunk. Other than that, they appear identical, depending on whether you tamed an adult or a baby creature.

“For every tribe befriended or destroyed, a piece of a totem pole is built, which increases the population limit of the player's tribe.” – The tribe only grow three times, after the first three tribes are taken over. Tribe sizes are 6, 9, and 12.

“When the totem pole has five pieces, the player moves forward to the Civilization phase.[27][38]” – The player CAN move on to the Civilization phase. They can also continue to fish, hunt wild animals, and gather food until they are ready to move on. At that time, as with the Cell and Creature phases, they can click the Advance button to move forward.

Civilization:

“When the player has conquered or allied with all the civilisations on the planet, the UFO editor appears.” – As with previous phases, the editor does not come up until the player clicks the Advance button. Also note the misspelling of civilization.

“For example, the cities of the planet change from a properly-scaled view with all individual buildings visible to a more cartoon-like depiction.[43][46]” – Not sure if this was removed, or if my computer can’t handle it, but none of my cities do this. Once beyond a certain height, the buildings vanish, but nothing replaces them. WHTJunior (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

“The player may also encounter Epic Creatures.” – Has this been verified, other than in the talk page? I have yet to run into any Epic cell creatures, that I know of.“

I have encountered them in my gameplay (in the Creature and Tribal phases), so yes, they do exist. --  ClosedEyesSeeing  (Speak) 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Creature, tribal, civ, and space, but no cell. Unless you count the bigger cells, but I don't think you can... 130.179.223.7 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "“Via the in-game "My Sporepage"..." - you do get information on when another player befriends/epicizes/exterminates your race. There are indeed no stats. 130.179.223.7 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Enormous cells are counted as 'Epic'. It is possible to see who exterminated your creature on MySpore Page, but as you mentioned it is difficult as you can't see previous messages. I'll see what I can do about the others, though. Nice catch. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All edits completed, thankyou once again! I apologise for the 'misspelling of civilization' - I speak British English and do it out of habit...that particular error was created when I modified that sentence :P Must have overlooked that one. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the introduction a sales pitch?

To me the 2nd part of the 2nd paragraph almost sounds like a sales pitch. "Spore is also available for direct download from Electronic Arts.[8] A special edition game, Spore: Galactic Edition, includes, in addition to the game, a "Making of Spore" DVD video, "How to Build a Better Being" DVD video by National Geographic Channel, "The Art of Spore" hardback mini-book, a fold-out Spore poster and a 97-page Galactic Handbook published by Prima Games.[9]" Does all this info about buying the game online or in a deluxe pack really belong in the introduction? Heck I don't think its even notable enought to make it in the article at all. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia not a buyers guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.128.94 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a little like one, but it is notable that a 'deluxe edition' is available. Perhaps the description should be more simplistic. It looks like it was copyvio'd from the official page. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

System Requirements?

Anyone know the exact specs you should have, since "PC/MAC" doesnt tell anyone much anything, other than it works on pc or mac. Things like OS[windows/mac os/linux], hardware and whatnot should be known 99bluefoxx (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?. There is sufficient information available in article. Click on "show" for more info.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"expanded Cell Editor an Beta Flora Editor"

Someone Put text in the Artcle in the Editors section saying that There is a Beta Flora Editor Plus an Expanded Cell editor, and all you needed to do is change the shortcut parameters. But there's one Question, WHERE'S THE PROOF???

Clearly this user didn't cite a resource, so what do we do about this??? DinoHunter2 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)DinoHunter2

It's been proved. I believe it was found on the official Spore forums. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 06:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How about backing up your proof with some information or evidence. — Suzumebachi (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Both are already present in Spore itself. You simply run the spore executable using the -state:CellEditor or -state:FloraEditor command line. The Beta flora editor is pretty much unusable, the Cell editor I havn't checked to see if it's capable of saving its creations (They'd likely be unusable anyway since you can't preselect your cell) --85.62.18.8 (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for next GA review

Before this article goes for another GA review, the "Phases" needs to be trimmed drastically. It is far too long and detailed for an encyclopedic article on the game. It should follow the same guidelines as WP:PLOT. Gary King (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Official Spore forums now banning users from playing their legit copies if they discuss DRM

Source: http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/3869.page

I really don't know what the Wikinerds deem notable anymore and haven't in years so I figured I'd put this here and let someone else run with it. dethtoll (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hah! "may be at risk of banning" is not the same thing as "now banning users". Dp76764 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but why is it even a possibility in the first place? dethtoll (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe cause it's a private company and you're using their property so they can enforce whatever rules they want? Poor customer service, to be sure, but it's their choice. Dp76764 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Marketing...

I wanted to start a new section about Spore's marketing...because I think it's really quite bizarre and out of the ordinary for video game marketing...

like these posters http://media.nowpublic.net/images//11/1/1111349365884fb1692a2b464d5612c4.jpg

Anyways, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, and it wont let me start a section!!! Whats the deal?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabam (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is semiprotected due to IP abuse. This unfortunately also catches new accounts (i.e. younger than 4 days old and under 10 edits) as well. If you have at least ten edits, all you'd have to do is wait until your account is four days old, and then you can add the section. Alternatively, request unprotection here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably need to illustrate what is so bizarre about it or notable. A random picture doesn't quite do it. If a reviewer or another news article is commenting on the marketing that is a good sign a section is needed.--Crossmr (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit filed

Someone has apparently filed a class action lawsuit against EA in essence demanding the ability to monitor, control, and remove Securom which is essentially a rootkit. Securom has also caused many people to have driver issues, as well as restricting some programs from even functioning. Also, many people are considering Securom a blatant intrusion on their privacy. If this lawsuit is genuine (and a 30 page document of this wording and phrasing would seem difficult to make up on the spot) then this will be very interesting to watch in the upcomming months. ~Anon@rpi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.237.216 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I know some people who have emailed them about it, and it is indeed genuine. Many reliable sites are also reporting it now. --.:Alex:. 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)