Go to any major gaming site (ign.com, gamespy.com, gamespot.com, to name a few) or the official Spore website and look at the forums discussing the Creature Creator, a limited version of which became available for download yesterday and the full version of which will be available for retail purchase tomorrow. You will invariably find many comments that say "I can't believe EA/Maxis/Will Wright/Will Wright's evil clone is actually charging $10 for this software; what a rip-off!" I'm having a really hard time understanding this mindset. I've seen some people claiming it stems from a distrust of distributor EA, with whom they've had some bad dealings in the past. Other people, I guess, are just cheap. Let me try to dissect this weird controversy.

Here are some basic facts: 1) EA/Maxis released a demo version of the Creature Creator, a component of the Spore game slated for release in September on June 17; 2) this demo version is limited to approximately one-quarter of the usable parts available in the "full" version, to be released in retail outlets and for download June 19; 3) the demo version is FREE to download, excepting internet-service charges; and 4) the full Creature Creator, as mentioned earlier, will be a part of the release version of Spore.

So given the above facts, where is the controversy? It seems to come down to two items: 1) that EA/Maxis had the audacity to charge money for what is seen as an advertisement for the full game; and 2) that EA is synonymous with EvilCo Ltd. I guess I have a lot of responses to those who adhere to the first argument. I would start by pointing out that the Creature Creator cannot logically be compared to a "game demo," which is a version of a full game intended to show off many of its core features. The Creature Creator is what it says it is; Spore, if one believes the hype, is considerably more. The full game allows the user to take creatures that have been built with the Creator module and guide them along an evolutionary path up from the "cell" stage to a stage where the creatures have societies capable of launching interplanetary spacecraft and colonizing other worlds. It's sort of a compressed (and paradoxically, at the same time, expanded) version of one of Wright's much earlier creations, SimLife. EA/Maxis may eventually release a true demo of Spore but this clearly is not it.

My second response would be to ask whether the complainant has ever purchased a "pre-release" version of anything? If so, (s)he should probably just go home and quit looking for things to grouse about. Why does anyone buy a pre-release whatever? Because you're expecting it to be almost like playing a full game? Because the developer will come to your house and upgrade your computer? I mean, really, what are people expecting? I have a pre-release from the old Bioware game Lionheart. It had a CD-ROM with some music files and wallpapers and a pack of trading cards. I have a pre-release for Guild Wars: Nightfall; it has a few in-game goodies and some music and some videos. I also have a pre-release for Icewind Dale II; if I recall correctly, it came with a mousepad and some music tracks and artwork. I think the real reason people spend money on pre-release items for games is that they're fanboys of that company/game franchise. Most of these "pre-releases" are hardly worth $2-3, let alone the average $10 they cost; however, if you're one of those people who likes to pimp out his/her computer with game-themed items (guilty) or you're just really into certain games for a while (also guilty), they're worth it to you.

So what does the Creature Creator let you do? Basically, it gives you the same tools that you will eventually have in the full release and lets you start making creatures now, three months before the release date of the game, that you can later import and start playing with in the full game. In practical terms, it gives you a head start on players who just buy the full game in September without having purchased the CC. People will be interested in this for different reasons. As anyone who's ever played a game with a multiplayer component can attest to, some people are really competitive and like to see their names on top of leaderboards for whatever the game du jour is at that moment. Some people just like to make creatures and movies and post them to Youtube to see what the reactions will be.

I tinkered with the demo version a little yesterday. It's pretty fun to toy with, but with only a fairly limited number of components, it feels like I'm missing out on being able to create more off-the-wall critters. However, it is perfectly adequate as a way of demonstrating how this module of the full game will work, and it's pretty clever, frankly.

So that leaves the EA-haters, I suppose. I don't know what to say about these folks really. EA is a huge company that distributes a large chunk of the games put out on the market today, including a fair number of console titles. Because it's so huge, it's hardly surprising that people have had bad experiences over the years with customer service or tech support. But does this really mean that it's necessary to "dis" a game whose only input from EA has been that it acts as distributor? Is it not sufficient to let a game stand or fall on its own merits anymore? If Spore turns out to be a complete crapfest, are these people still going to blame EA? Doesn't that seem a bit absurd on its face?