Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
8 
Report this post
No one of the games from the Battle.net app were Denuvo protected. The battle.net app itself does not support Denuvo integration.
there's no way it won't have denuvo on there, thoughthat's not how it works, denuvo is implemented into the executable, it doesn't matter what storefront or launcher it runs through
Steam is the only storefront that discloses DRM, Kernel Levil Anti-cheat, and requirements for accounts or 3rd party launchers.... Then Epic wants to talk about how Steam being a monopoly because nobody else wants to use other storefronts. lol.. Heaven forbid they actually try to compete.
Oh wow, he's acknowledging my existence! I'm going to geek out like a nerdy schoolgirl now!
You mean this petition?[www.stopkillinggames.com]
My understanding of that petition was that it was written to prevent software companies from doing something like leaving Denuvo in a game they plan to stop supporting. It's a vague petition at this point and will remain vague until it's formalized into law, but it doesn't read like something that's an absolute rebuke of Denuvo - just a way to ensure your access is preserved indefinitely.
And as I've said - repeatedly - part of using Denuvo is removing it after any benefits are realized by the dev/publisher.
Whether it's "reasonable" or not to expect a device that could run a modern video game to spend exactly a few seconds online - either via public wifi or their own mobile phone's hotspot - downloading a packet that's a few kb is extremely debatable. Does this mean developers need to "future-proof" their games as well if a widely used OS is updated and doesn't support the title?
The petition - and any law that results - will be interesting in the context of live service games that don't offer an offline, not connected instance. Does this mean Blizzard will be in violation when/if they kill the World of Warcraft servers?
Otherwise a law that requires this isn't offensive to anyone - Denuvo/DRM tolerant or not.
No one actually cares if Irdeto spends time and money attempting to clean up their image, because they are not a sympatico figure for anyone who has even a horridly misinformed notion of who they are and what they do. No one celebrates when Denuvo is included in a title.
But you're right - publishers do care. The fact remains that Denuvo has gotten increasingly more difficult to crack. Whatever that means to whoever, that's apparently a valuable enough feature to keep it on the menu for specific titles. It doesn't make sense for every game - especially not the two you linked above.
I'm definitely able to hear what you're saying - that's never been an issue. But I think you should put me back on ignore, because I'm going to continue rejecting the method and sleight of hand you use to bastion your message.
The “Stop Killing Games” campaign, which demands regulation around DRM and post-support playability, reached the European Commission's required threshold in seven countries and mobilized over half a million gamers - a group known for rarely agreeing on anything - which is saying something. That alone should tell you which direction public opinion is heading.
By downplaying it, you're not just defending DRM: You're defending a model of software ownership that's increasingly recognized as harmful - and you're on the wrong side of that shift.
You're actually misrepresenting what the petition sets out to achieve in order to further a different argument. Steelmanning with a strawman (which isn't without some rebar, as it were).
As Grampire outlined, it has nothing to do with anti-piracy efforts at all, but only about end-of-life games and how publishers manage them. Specifically it examines the subscription model or games as a service, arguing when online support (servers) are discontinued, that full control - ownership - should be granted to the customer.
This has zero, nothing, nada, zip to do with Denuvo.
I'm not sure why you are debasing your argument by relying upon this petition or the ideas therein. There are a variety of better foundations upon which to base an anti-Denuvo stance (the rebar). Although these foundations are in and of themselves somewhat problematic - much conjecture, hearsay and bias with little concrete evidence - they have the benefit of being related to this topic, an advantage the petition does not enjoy.
Yes, I'm sure that Denuvo affects performance. It may increase load times and one may experience some stuttering or loss of frames. It sucks for all of us, no doubt and I'm not making an argument for Denuvo, per se, but one has to ask why it's there before crying for its complete removal.
Piracy is a real thing and costs developers millions. To combat this, devs need to rely on tools like Denuvo, which is apparently the best option available. You are essentially blaming the victim but because its a for-profit company operating within a capitalist system, any theft is somehow seen as just or outright overlooked or dismissed. Why?
How should Id respond to the problem of piracy then? Do you have a better answer to this than Denuvo?
Start a software company and develop something better or somehow stop piracy. Those are the options available. I for one can do neither, so I'll hope that as they have in the past, Id have found a good balance between protecting their work and performance (with 2016 and DE, Denuvo was invisible to me, or at least insignificant enough that I didn't notice its impact) and that it won't have the dire consequences that everyone seems to believe it will.
You're pre-outraged which is so typical these days that any point you might have is lost in the din. Try a measure of restraint and patience and dare I say, positivity. When the game arrives, we'll know with certainty and can have a factual discussion but until then, its just hyperbolic, pre-victim noise.
NB: While I don't want to kick open a very wide door, I think that the Denuvo thing is just one in a line of rationalizations people are using as a surrogate for what is in reality, an inability to acquire the game. I won't outline any specifics, but while some of these reasons point to sad and unfortunate conditions, software devs - Id - are not to blame for any of it.
Beyond performance, Denuvo introduces real ownership and accessibility problems - especially when servers go down or activations fail. That’s not speculation; it’s well-documented. Even people with high-end rigs and solid connections can get locked out through no fault of their own. DRM like Denuvo isn’t just a temporary annoyance - it has long-term implications for gaming history and preservation.
As the introduction of the Stop Killing Games initiative put it :
Now with your attempt at misrepresenting the movement out of the way, piracy is an issue publishers have to deal with, No one is disputing that piracy exists - but fearmongering with made-up numbers doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it. If you want people to accept Denuvo, you'll need to prove your claim that Denuvo improves the situation in any way.
I have proven my case that better ways to counter piracy exist by quoting eminent figures of this industry,[mcvuk.com] developers, publishers, experts and independent research[felixreda.eu] all disapproving the excessive use of DRM and sometimes going as far as claiming that piracy is a scapegoat and not nearly the boogeyman it's sometimes depicted to be by DRM proponents.
Then, ironically, the protection Denuvo offers is what's showing us the cracks in the corporate narrative.
Publishers have long claimed that piracy deprives them of 90% or more of their rightful sales on PC (Ubisoft has said as much as 97%). If that were true, eliminating piracy would directly boost their sales by a gargantuan degree, an order of magnitude or more. The inconvenient truth, which ironically is not so hidden anymore now that publishers have gotten their wish of impregnable DRM, is that piracy was not systematically displacing large amounts of otherwise full sales, as publishers had claimed.
There are better tools than Denuvo to address piracy - ones that don’t harm paying customers. Timely discounts, regional pricing, strong community support, value-adding features such as Steamworks and services like GOG (which sells DRM-free games and still turns a profit) have proven to reduce piracy more effectively than intrusive software. Developers like CD Projekt Red, Larian Studios, and even major voices like Gabe Newell have all pointed out that treating customers with respect is a far better anti-piracy measure than punishing them with DRM. These companies are far from being pro-piracy, they simply believe that going to war with their own customers and expecting to get better monetisation out of it is backwards. If the goal is to reduce piracy, we already know what works - and it isn’t Denuvo.
Take it from the one person who has literally all the data:
“The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting more DRM. It's by giving those people a service that's better than what they're receiving from the pirates.”
— Gabe Newell, Valve CEO
I'm not "pre-outraged" as you've put it. I've been locked out of the games I owned on multiple occasions in games such as Total War Warhammer, Doom Eternal, Monster Hunter World and Hogwart's Legacy. That made me realize, along with tens of thousands of other people, that this is a bigger issue than just my personal enjoyment - it’s about consumer rights and long-term access.
As Larian's publishing chief put it, calling out Ubisoft's broken strategy: "If gamers need to get used to not owning games, 'developers must get used to not having jobs"
Now, if you want to help improve the gaming industry, you're welcome to join and put in some work. But if you have nothing constructive to contribute - just thinly veiled poor-shaming and baseless accusations of theft in a pretty package of hollow words - accomplishing nothing beyond giving yourself the airs of a slightly educated bully - then stop wasting everyone's time and move aside.
As such, I agree with the petition, but not with your misinterpretation of it, nor how you are presenting it as an argument against DRM here. Read what you quoted from the SKG website: it's not written in ambiguity and metaphor, but quite pointed and clear. DRM removal would be an implicit and necessary corollary to the goal of the project but the SKG mandate in and of itself is not a case against the use of DRM.
All of your "research" is old and hardly authoritative and looking to Gaben for anything on this topic is like asking Santa about running a small candy store.
This sort of broad leftist zealotry scares people away from even worthy causes. Good luck saving gaming from your chair.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to back your claims with evidence. Otherwise, it comes off as baseless dismissal. For all I know, you might just be another alt-account echoing industry lines, mistaking sarcasm for argument.
Either way, your disagreement has been noted. You're welcome to join our action and make constructive suggestions to improve it in a way that would satisfy you and help push the gaming industry forward: https://store.steampowered.com/curator/26095454-Denuvo-Games/
And let’s be clear: the burden of proof isn’t on us to accept DRM - it’s on you to justify it. If you can't, the market will decide. We’ll simply spend our money elsewhere.