Why does Square Enix get away with hiding Denuvo in their eula, when every other publisher has to explicitly disclose it on the store page?

[Speaker For The Dead]

Thanks

[WhiteKnight]

Fake님이 먼저 게시:

What exactly is denuvo?

It's a anti-tamper software that let's you not to make a copy of the game. Basically it's a condom but for gaming purpose.

shiel님이 먼저 게시:

Years after Denuvo became a thing and I'm still trying to figure out why people care so much.

Well people want to complain something and nit-pick everything. It's just a human way of doing things.

[8ullfrog]

There should be a bright orange warning for crap like Denuvo. Wasn't there one previously?

[ReBoot]

8ullfrog님이 먼저 게시:

There should be a bright orange warning for crap like Denuvo. Wasn't there one previously?

Like on https://store.steampowered.com/app/1277400 ?

[8ullfrog]

That's good warning!

[Brian9824]

MonsieurOmega님이 먼저 게시:

So are there other examples of games with denuvo that don't explicitly say so on the store page. If so, I'd like to know. I was under the assumption that if a game has denuvo it tells you without having to read the eula.

You were wrong, its never been required on the store page.

[Start_Running]

LowJack_VA1님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

A youtuber told them it was bad.

I swear I think you're absolutely right! They saw YouTubers complaining about it and they think Denuvo is automatically evil.

That's where a lot of 'gamer rage stems from.

[Start_Running]

kitt님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

A youtuber told them it was bad.

is all all you can say nowadays? people have opinions and you just bring your youtube "argument".

you are such a clown holy hell.

Doesn't make the observation any less true.
Granted its a chicken and egg question as to where the feedback cycle starts.
But very rarelty are people informed by first hand or second hand sources on these matters. Mostly third hand.

Because any first hand investigation of the claims and assertion tends to show them to be 'less than accurate'.

Denuvo is actually a perfect example.

[The End]

All publishers/developers should be required to have a box on the store telling what kind of DRM and anticheat they bundle with their game.

I prefere my games to have only Steam as DRM or no DRM at all, that said I don't see the big problem with Denuvo, some publishers/developers even remove it after some time.
I have multiple games with Denuvo, and I don't notice any difference in playing a game with or without.

[MonkehMaster]

not only anticheats, even worse intrusive anticheats like how vangaurd was in the beginning, then you have things like denuvo, ect..

yes they have useless reasons for some, some work well and dont cause issues, but some also are very intrusive and ones like vanguard (and others) running ring 0 and starting up when you boot your pc are just plain garbage, as well some bog down your pc quite substantially when trying to play games, its bad enough trying to run alot of these games that devs cant/wont fully optimize to run well, but then we have all this other nonsense helping make them run even worse.

yes i brought up anti cheats into this discussion of denuvo and other things of that sort, as they all cause issues.

that being said, doesnt steam have its own drm? why do we need denuvo/ect.. stuffed into our steam games as well?

for that matter why do we have all this third party sign-ins and launchers, intrusive EULAs and data collection, ect... gaming is getting a bit ridiculous now a days.

people can argue the merits and/or how they dont care or how they dont think its bad, but at the end of the day, all that stuff is not needed.

anywho, thats all i have to say on the topic, have fun peeps.

[RiO]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

davidb11님이 먼저 게시:

All I know is the Store page must tell if the game features any DRM at all.
Even if it says you must sign a EULA for Denuvo would be enough.

[Citation Required]

It's actually a legal requirement for the EU territories, originating from EU Directive 2011/83/EU[eur-lex.europa.eu].

That directive states that for distance sales a trader is required to inform consumers of certain information regarding a product. Among these required bits of information is the functionality, including any present technological protection measures, of digital content. (Art 6.1r)

The term "technological protection measures" does not narrow scope to DRM. It incorporates any kind of protection measures including anti-cheat; code obfuscators; and anti-tamperware, the last of which is how Denuvo would be classified.


This information has to be presented to consumers in a clear and comprehensible manner. Courts have determined that burying these notifications pages deep inside the legalese of a formal EULA does not fulfill the criteria 'clear and comprehensible' and it's actually required to make separate notice of these things directly on e.g. store front pages for a web store.


Absolutely not sure of the legalities of the matter for other parts of the world, but them's the way it works in the EU. That much I am quite sure of.

[Start_Running]

RiO님이 먼저 게시:

Absolutely not sure of the legalities of the matter for other parts of the world, but them's the way it works in the EU. That much I am quite sure of.

And you might want to checkl the Scope section of that Directive..
It wouldn't apply to STeam from what I'm seeing there.

RiO님이 먼저 게시:

This information has to be presented to consumers in a clear and comprehensible manner. Courts have determined that burying these notifications pages deep inside the legalese of a formal EULA does not fulfill the criteria 'clear and comprehensible' and it's actually required to make separate notice of these things directly on e.g. store front pages for a web store.

[Citation Required.]

Also it does seem that nmember states are free to choose not to apply the directive.

[Walach]

All I learnt from this was that some people said that nothing on youtube can be true, nothing at all. Word for word, total quote without any sort of sarcasm! ;P

I hate denuvo, I have no idea why if I'm honest. I think I just picked it up from a friend that showed me like 20.000 videos on it. :P

And I guess they "hide" it because they don't want people knowing that they use it. I forgot the "legal" term name where they try and hide that they do X. I mean, you see how people react if they find that a game uses denuvo, it's in the news... of gaming!

[RiO]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

RiO님이 먼저 게시:

Absolutely not sure of the legalities of the matter for other parts of the world, but them's the way it works in the EU. That much I am quite sure of.

And you might want to checkl the Scope section of that Directive..
It wouldn't apply to STeam from what I'm seeing there.

As you yourself so aptly phrased before:
[Citation Required]

Can you please describe exactly under which part of the scope of applicability as defined in Art 3, those measures would not apply to Steam and/or publishers selling through Steam?

And may I also remind you that this is the directive from which the right of withdrawal, including the requirement to waiving that right in the context of purchases of digital content, stems. A thing which Steams explicitly asks you to agree to!

[Start_Running]

davidb11님이 먼저 게시:

All I know about Denuvo is if it's used wrong, it causes a lot of issues.
If it's used correctly, like it almost always is, it doesn't break things.

Its worth noting that the incidents of it being used improperly occured early in its life . when it was a new product and new to developers. As developpers have learned and as the software itself has improved the occurences of this has apparently gone down . To the point where most people have to be told whether or not Denuvo is in play.

[His Majesty's strawberry cart]

so this is about hackers speeding down the road in an ambulance?