Space Marine 2 rejects Denuvo and DRM with a concise and simple "no"
Saber Interactive confirms that Warhammer 40k Space Marine 2 will not include Denuvo or any other anti-piracy DRM when it launches.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I'm sharing my distrust in the communication to the players based on shit that happened in the past. But thanks for the personal attack disguised as concern.
Actually I found it pretty disturbing that you'd make shit up just to throw a shade, so I'd consider the concern genuine even if poorly communicated.
Seriously, normal people don't go "but what if they're lying" any time something is said.
They do when lied to often. Doesn't need to be the same source, just the same ballpark.
I'm just going to repeat what I said. Normal people don’t go “but what if they’re lying” any time something is said. They do it when it's the same entity doing the saying, like if Ubisoft said they're going to try something different normal people wouldn't believe then, but normal people don't generalize everyone. Just because Ubisoft or EA or ActiBliz has told lies doesn't mean EVERY developer tells lies. It's incredibly toxic to think everyone is lying.
It is incredibly toxic, do you think that I do that? Over a "Why the over specific denial"? Seems a bit harsh. Are normal people that harsh?
It's a lived example of the "one bad apple spoils the bunch". There are quite a few bad apples in the publisher space, some on the developer side. Do normal people just not recognize patterns in an industry? Are normal people apathetic about how an industry treats them?
It is incredibly toxic, do you think that I do that? Over a “Why the over specific denial”?
But you did. Everyone else was either optimistic or "yeah, whatever" about the statement, only you went "there must be something wrong with the statement". You are literally the only person in this thread questioning if it's genuine.
It’s a lived example of the “one bad apple spoils the bunch”. There are quite a few bad apples in the publisher space, some on the developer side. Do normal people just not recognize patterns in an industry? Are normal people apathetic about how an industry treats them?
This is how bigots talk. "Some black people are bad people so I will treat all black people as bad people". "Some immigrants are bad people so all immigrants are bad". "Some young folk are lazy so all young folk are lazy". etc.
People notice patterns, as I pointed out with Ubisoft and Blizzard and EA. But people don't make sweeping generalizations based on those patterns. Just because Ubisoft is shitty doesn't mean we should be questioning everything Larian says. The problem isn't skepticism, the problem is that you're making huge generalizations to then be skeptical which leads you to make unfounded criticism.
No idea what you want to say in the first paragraph. I understand that you think it's toxic to have a different opinion? Pretty sure that's not what you meant.
There is a big difference between corporations and people. Bigotry against people cannot compare to bigotry against corporations. And then there's a difference from that to an industry. Most notably there's something called "industry standard" which (most often) the market leader sets and the competition copies in an attempt to catch up. To resist this means to potentialy lose money, something only few companies want or tolerate.
I can recommend searching for Cory Doctorow's idea of "Enshittification" to get an understanding why companies might use costumer favourable policies at their beginning which they revoke in favor of more money later. It's what made Amazon big, or Facebook. I'm sure you won't, but there might be readers of this dialogue that might be interested.
No, I don't know Saber's internal politics toward this, and no, I don't share your chipper attitude towards their intentions.
I do recognize they were nice to their customers, which is a good thing. But they were recently acquired by Beacon Interactive which doesn't even have a wikipedia page. The future remains unclear. I don't know where their path will take them, neither do you. You trust them at your own risk.
No idea what you want to say in the first paragraph. I understand that you think it's toxic to have a different opinion? Pretty sure that's not what you meant.
I most likely misunderstood what you were saying so we had a miscommunication. I don't think the miscommunication is particularly relevant so I'll leave it at that.
There is a big difference between corporations and people. Bigotry against people cannot compare to bigotry against corporations. And then there's a difference from that to an industry. Most notably there's something called "industry standard" which (most often) the market leader sets and the competition copies in an attempt to catch up. To resist this means to potentialy lose money, something only few companies want or tolerate.
There is a difference between corporations and people, but the underlying fallacy is the same. If companies A, B and C are bad it doesn't mean all the companies from D to Z are also bad. And industry standard doesn't mean every company will follow the industry and industry standard doesn't guarantee making money. We have a lot of examples of companies following the industry standard and flopping hard, and we have examples of companies that don't follow the standard and are wildly successful.
I can recommend searching for Cory Doctorow's idea of "Enshittification" to get an understanding why companies might use costumer favourable policies at their beginning which they revoke in favor of more money later. It's what made Amazon big, or Facebook. I'm sure you won't, but there might be readers of this dialogue that might be interested.
I'm well aware of enshittification and I completely fail to see how that's relevant in this particular instance. In fact your entire premise of "they might add it later" makes no sense because literally the best time to have DRM is at launch when the potentially demand is the highest, and once your game is pirated the cat is out the bag and adding it later makes very little sense.
No, I don't know Saber's internal politics toward this, and no, I don't share your chipper attitude towards their intentions.
That's fine.
I do recognize they were nice to their customers, which is a good thing. But they were recently acquired by Beacon Interactive which doesn't even have a wikipedia page. The future remains unclear. I don't know where their path will take them, neither do you. You trust them at your own risk.
Beacon interactive was founded by the co-founder of Saber interactive for the purpose of buying out Saber from Embracer. That was literally the second result (the first one was a completely other company called Beacon Interactive Systems) on DDG if you searched for Beacon interactive. Google has the article a bit more downward as most suggestions are about that other company but in the top results are Saber interactive wiki page that has the exact same information. I can only assume that you did a search just to confirm your "company bad" bad and didn't look any further because it took just a nudge more effort to find out that Saber interactive is effectively an independent company.
But I guess it doesn't matter because you automatically assume company bad, so it's not like that is going to change your mind.
The underlying fallacy might be the same, but the target is not. That makes a huge difference. Especially with the power discrepancy corporations (the big ones at least, and most others too) have compared to singular humans.
Your point with the DRM is valid, but I could just replace it in this argument with more aggressive anti-cheat. Still, it's a good point.
I didn't know that for Beacon Interactive. Maybe I did stumble on the other one. For me, this wasn't even on the second page of results. My search was indeed inadequate. I blame filter bubbles. And a very stupid naming similarity. Good that you found this though.
I do see Saber (and Beacon) in a better light now, my overall attitude to corporations however won't change. Maybe I'll do more research before commenting. Maybe.
Well your stance is "don't trust them" because they could lie. Then why listen to anything they say at all or engage in the convo?
Interesting choices of questions. I don't listen to what they say, I look at what they did. Hence my opinion.
Why do I engage in this convo? Not much to do on a Monday evening. Why do you engage in this convo?
Well I was looking for an engaging convo, not chat with someone doesn't trust anyone or anything. It seems there's no shared perception of reality we can have a conversation about, it happens.
Then why choose this thread instead of my first comment here?
