Denuvo

[San]

Just my five cents: This is right down my alley, but there's no way I'm going to install that Denuvo crap in my system.

[En9a9e]

Escrito originalmente por min3r95:

Escrito originalmente por En9a9e:

I'm not trying to rebut your entire argument (or say that I don't understand it at least in part) but I think it's salient to point out that this describes Steam itself.

Not a single thing steam do that even similar to Denuvo, steam offline mode work immediately and indefinitely, Denuvo ruined that by forcing the games to run in online mode to acquired an expirable authorization token.

Reread your original TLDR. Google "Do I own the games I buy on Steam?" and then let me know if there is (really) nothing at all that is similar. Your access to your Steam library is not unrestricted. Denuvo didn't ruin anything in that regard as long as if it isn't requiring an online connection to play the game (which depends on it's implementation by the developer).

I mean come on. If you were selling and distributing a product you spent years making and one key started activating multiple times across numerous devices and just kept going and going... that wouldn't seem a bit concerning at all? So if this game actually does require a connection every single time you play then I'm still buying and playing it because I don't mind the price knowing my connection stability and the hours of entertainment I will get out of it, but I'd at least admit your boycott is valid on those particular grounds.

[min3r95]

Escrito originalmente por En9a9e:

Reread your original TLDR. Google "Do I own the games I buy on Steam?" and then let me know if there is (really) nothing at all that is similar. Your access to your Steam library is not unrestricted. Denuvo didn't ruin anything in that regard as long as if it isn't requiring an online connection to play the game (which depends on it's implementation by the developer).

I mean come on. If you were selling and distributing a product you spent years making and one key started activating multiple times across numerous devices and just kept going and going... that wouldn't seem a bit concerning at all? So if this game actually does require a connection every single time you play then I'm still buying and playing it because I don't mind the price knowing my connection stability and the hours of entertainment I will get out of it, but I'd at least admit your boycott is valid on those particular grounds.

If this is about ownership, then the thing about "we don't own game only" is just words of mouth, the only ones who enforced this is maybe Ubisoft and those who want justify bad business practices and intrusive DRM. EULAs and TOSs all remind you of one thing : you're only own the copies you bought, not their brands,IPs, ect....
Steam user words like "buy" and "purchase", and if you check your own profile, steam say you own games.

Each installation of a game doesn't equal a steam key activation, so publishers lose nothing from extra installations(if this is what you're trying to say).

Steam does not restrict how many time you can install a game, how long can you stay offline, offline mode work immediately and indefinitely after the games have been finished downloading with no forced online authorization, none of these is something Steam impose: adding another level of restriction and uncertainty.
At best: Denuvo make things worse.

[Tex]

Escrito originalmente por min3r95:

Escrito originalmente por En9a9e:

Reread your original TLDR. Google "Do I own the games I buy on Steam?" and then let me know if there is (really) nothing at all that is similar. Your access to your Steam library is not unrestricted. Denuvo didn't ruin anything in that regard as long as if it isn't requiring an online connection to play the game (which depends on it's implementation by the developer).

I mean come on. If you were selling and distributing a product you spent years making and one key started activating multiple times across numerous devices and just kept going and going... that wouldn't seem a bit concerning at all? So if this game actually does require a connection every single time you play then I'm still buying and playing it because I don't mind the price knowing my connection stability and the hours of entertainment I will get out of it, but I'd at least admit your boycott is valid on those particular grounds.

If this is about ownership, then the thing about "we don't own game only" is just words of mouth, the only ones who enforced this is maybe Ubisoft and those who want justify bad business practices and intrusive DRM. EULAs and TOSs all remind you of one thing : you're only own the copies you bought, not their brands,IPs, ect....
Steam user words like "buy" and "purchase", and if you check your own profile, steam say you own games.

Each installation of a game doesn't equal a steam key activation, so publishers lose nothing from extra installations(if this is what you're trying to say).

Steam does not restrict how many time you can install a game, how long can you stay offline, offline mode work immediately and indefinitely after the games have been finished downloading with no forced online authorization, none of these is something Steam impose: adding another level of restriction and uncertainty.
At best: Denuvo make things worse.:nmh3sylviapoint:

That's BS mate. Try playin COD offline. It wont even let you start the campaigns on the newer ones without internet. Doesnt matter how often you already played it online or how often you installed of whatever. Your information is simply wrong. Not calling you a liar here but you gotta do some better investigation before you come up with what you wrote.

[LordPraxxus]

Most people who are pirating were never going to buy the game in the first place, it's often a problem of cost and accessibility. But once they pirate it, they might end up liking it so much, that a purchase wouldn't be out of the equation, and there'll definitely be positive word of mouth. I sail the high seas for games where I'm doubtful of the optimisation and fun-factor, if it works well and is fun, I buy it outright or wait for a sale/patches, otherwise I just delete and forget about it forever.

Many top selling games like Cyberpunk, BG3, KCD2, etc have released without DRM, and they all have been massively successful, surpassing every expectation. IMO, companies who shove DRM into their games lack confidence in their own product, so they want to squeeze out every sale possible.

[Tex]

but by doing so they actually have less sales because a lot of people dont take that sh** anymore. Those company put us gamers under general suspicion, as if we all are pirates.
So if you don't trust me with your product, I don't trust you with my money. I am almost 40 now, I don't need to play every game anymore. Besides there are so many out there that interest me, I don't even know where to start. Fact is, if you think I am a criminal and you put me under general suspicion, then I will not buy your product. My wallet speaks.

[min3r95]

Escrito originalmente por Tex:

That's BS mate. Try playin COD offline. It wont even let you start the campaigns on the newer ones without internet. Doesnt matter how often you already played it online or how often you installed of whatever. Your information is simply wrong. Not calling you a liar here but you gotta do some better investigation before you come up with what you wrote.

Call of Duty is a multiplayer focused game, its online requirement for the single player campaign is more of an exception than the rule. Single player games, especially those without intrusive/online DRM, they work exactly as I said, same for this game if it doesn't come with Denuvo.

It's honestly frustrating that you didn’t realize this was about single player games. It should’ve been obvious, especially since the game we’re discussing is a single-player title.

[Tex]

you never wrote singleplayer anywhere. also what does it change ? there is games you can't play without being online on steam, period. some people play cod with bots and they cant do it offline, for example.

[The Chosen One]

Bought it. Don't care about Denuvo. Doesn't change a thing for me.

[lukaself]

Escrito originalmente por Tex:

but by doing so they actually have less sales because a lot of people dont take that sh** anymore. Those company put us gamers under general suspicion, as if we all are pirates.
So if you don't trust me with your product, I don't trust you with my money. I am almost 40 now, I don't need to play every game anymore. Besides there are so many out there that interest me, I don't even know where to start. Fact is, if you think I am a criminal and you put me under general suspicion, then I will not buy your product. My wallet speaks.

Yeah, it's that simple. In this highly competitive market, even the most minor hurdle between a player and the game is a reason for customers to look elsewhere. We have lot of options - what's the incentive to accept being treated like thieves when so many games trust their players and succeed financially while doing it, ensuring a better long term support than any title with Denuvo?

[Vanguard]

DRM should never be in in a single player game. Period. It's completely needless and just makes me think the publisher is scared to death and insecure about their game selling. If your game needs Denuvo it's probably a sh!t game.

[Le Whopper]

Man. And here i got really interested and then it's the Denuvo crap again. Guess i wait till it gets removed or

[AGlezB]

Escrito originalmente por En9a9e:

If you had a store for selling bikes and every year at least some bikes were stolen no matter what... would that mean you wouldn't invest in security tags for your inventory?

No. What is means is you can count one, two, three and know exactly how many bikes you lost. Losses due to piracy in digital products are always an estimate because the data they have is from the people who bought the product, not from the people who didn't. If you read the Ars Technica artice, which I'm pretty sure you didn't, you'll find this:

After applying some complex statistical models to the underlying data, Volckmann finds that, unsurprisingly, relative revenues in the weeks following a crack's release are lower than the baseline expectation for uncracked games in the same time period.

In case you're unfamiliar with the terminology what that means is he pulled the numbers out of his lower backside or more likely from Irdeto's lower backside, since his numbers match so well with the ones from the company that's trying to sell you Denuvo.

Escrito originalmente por En9a9e:

Elden Ring $60 No Denuvo. Baldurs Gate 3 $60 No Denuvo. KCD2 $60 No Denuvo.

Atomfall $50 with Denuvo

I don't know why you would think every game costs the same to make.

Escrito originalmente por En9a9e:

I'm no Denuvo fan, but your argument doesn't seem to make sense when you say the extra cost of Denuvo is being passed on to the customer here. Happy to hear where i'm mis-understanding it though.

From your comment I don't think you'll understand the answer, but here it is: Value chain[en.wikipedia.org]

Products pass through a chain of activities in order, and at each activity the product gains some value. The chain of activities gives the products more added value than the sum of added values of all activities.

[BEEP!]

The moment I saw it was Rebellion I removed it from my wish-list because I know they'l never remove Denuvo.
Good thing it's on gamepass I guess there's at least that.
For me to buy a game with Denuvo it has to be a shockingly good game and nothing less than that.

[TipsyDipsy]

Let's be honest the only way to preserve games now is to pirate them, when you buy games on steam, PlayStation store or Xbox store, your not buying the game, your just buying the licence to play said game, if the steam store or any other digital store shuts down can say bye bye to your games you paid for

[GrumpyPirate™]

Oh look, another game for the ignore list. Shame, it looked interesting.