• A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

    • angrymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’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

  • Liara@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep. 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.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Saying piracy has never resulted in lost sale is the same as saying it always results in a lost sale.

  • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • raktheundead@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • lobstermania@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    denuvo 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.