Denuvo wants to convince you its DRM isn’t “evil”
Denuvo wants to convince you its DRM isn’t “evil”
COO says coming benchmarks will show anti-piracy tech has no performance impact.
I'd sooner believe shit is a harmless and beneficial food additive, than I'd believe DRM harmless. and no, I'm not a pirate, but that doesnt mean DRM hasnt fucked me, and not even in a DRM/Proton fashion because it was before I even switched to linux
22I'm a pirate but also buy a lot of games, and fot me this kind of DRM just hurt your paying customers more than the pirate ones
5Ironically enough, I always pirate games that have DRM like Denuvo.
3
"Anti-piracy technologies is to the benefit of the game publishers, [but also] is of benefit to the players in that it protects the [publisher's] investment and it means the publishers can then invest in the next game"
The only entity benefiting in this scenario is Denuvo, while the client clutches their pearls to protect a misguided concept of the elusive lost sale. Denuvo rakes in cash in the name of copy protection, but the truth is most acts of piracy are driven by a lack of means to obtain the product or a desire to demo the product.
Sure it's their right to protect it but I don't think there's any accurate way to actually measure the impact of games with and without such aggressive copy protection.
19Yep. Piracy has never resulted in a lost sale.
But piracy has resulted in people buying games they wouldnt have otherwise.
I wish the entire industry would choke and die on this entire fucking "1 download = 1 lost sale" hysterical nonsense.
15Saying piracy has never resulted in lost sale is the same as saying it always results in a lost sale.
7
Modern games have been getting shittier, and with Denuvo claiming that many publishers don't renew beyond that 6-month period, it really doesn't change anything. The best period to buy (or pirate) a game seems to be 6 months to a year after release, when all the bugs that shouldn't be there in a finished product have been fixed, and Denuvo is not there either (or the game has been cracked anyways), it seems to me that the best time to play a game for anyone involved, is 6 months to a year after release. Also, for paying customers, the game would have likely gone down in value significantly and you might be able to pick it up second-hand for a significant discount, while also ensuring you don't support greedy publishers releasing half-baked, incomplete products. Problem solved.
None of the above applies to indie games, which I would feel more inclined to pay for, and genuinely find more fun nowadays.
But all of that is just my opinion on the matter.
6Yeah, I dont even buy games new anymore.
Why should I? They are all broken betaware, that they want me to pay 50/60/70 dollars for! Its absurdity.
I wait for a year or two, and get the game and all its DLC on sale for 5 dollars. It'll be the actual complete experience, and with the least amount of bugs too.
6Pro xkcd moment.
1
Yeah but how many of those shitty bugs in the first 6mo are related to the crappy DRM causing issues?
1@theshatterstone54 @dvdnet90 yeah, those kinds of games are always reported to have issues for whatever reason
1
They failed at that before Denuvo was even developed; their predecessor company developed SecuROM, which I was burnt with a couple of times. Once bitten, twice shy.
3denuvo dosent prevent piracy. it's very sad when pirates get a better experience than paying customers. don't get me wrong i buy my games but i avoid most triple A games because of shit like denuvo. i don't mind basic copy protection like serial numbers but intrusive/performance hogging or even always online DRM is a plague.
3