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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3
Denuvo wants to convince you its DRM isn’t “evil” | Spyke
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
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
Ironically enough, I always pirate games that have DRM like Denuvo.
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.
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.
Saying piracy has never resulted in lost sale is the same as saying it always results in a lost sale.
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.
Yeah, 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.
Pro xkcd moment.
Yeah but how many of those shitty bugs in the first 6mo are related to the crappy DRM causing issues?
@theshatterstone54 @dvdnet90 yeah, those kinds of games are always reported to have issues for whatever reason
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.
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.