So... Capcom shenanigans (When does DRM prove to be too much?)

[V-Bro - The Titan's Driver]

Well, in regards to the title's question, I'm sure many players say it's already too much whenever the subject comes up.

But I suppose I mean more to ask, "When does DRM become so much that a massive resistance and possibly legal action is required to beat it back?"
And a prime example has just reared its ugly head.

For those who haven't learned yet, Capcom has taken sneaky actions of adding "Enigma DRM" to several of its already-released games, right here on Steam.

What for? To block and prevent the use of mods in their games. ALL mods.
Needless to say, with that also came performance and stuttering issues as well.

Their excuse? There are many, but those familiar with a certain conference that happened a couple months ago probably recall this: Capcom declared mods to be the equivalent of cheating. (Oh, and the company also doesn't like mods that "violate public order and morals.")

So now Capcom has quickly gotten aggressive attacking any mods, including cosmetic ones that don't affect gameplay at all. And it doesn't end there - they've also recently taken to attacking internet gameplay videos depicting any mods, with copyright strikes.

I believe people should be very concerned with this, even if they don't play any Capcom games at all. After all, if one company can do this, what's to stop others from following example? Remember Rockstar attacking some GTA mods not so long ago?
Can you picture Bethesda suddenly saying you're no longer allowed to use Steam workshop for Skyrim tomorrow? I can - Don't assume they're above that.

And it really begs to question: Just how far should companies be allowed to control mods anyways, because I certainly don't think Capcom should be 'permitted' to do THIS. It's a bad omen for future gaming.

Of course, I'm no legal expert, and even if I was, I wouldn't really know the best course of action here to protect mods when it comes to the international gaming market.

But at least, I think Steam needs start putting in certain limits on how exactly a company can "update" a game. I always feared this risk with games and service always tied online, and once again, problems are materializing.
I strongly desire protections for old games that people possess for years so that, among other reasons, a company cannot suddenly decide to force a performance-killing DRM that restricts how players play their game for their own fun.

Because who's dumb enough to believe this is only about stopping cheating? It's an excuse, not the motive or target.

[potato]

denuvo isn't part of any launchers and numerous games don't disclose denuvo, see above

[RiO]

引用自 m662：

No because it is not about what software is installed

In the context of technical protection measures, it actually is.

Look at the 2011/83 EU Directive on consumer rights[eur-lex.europa.eu]. Specifically, article 6 wrt informational requirements for distance and off-premises contracts, which states:

1. Before the consumer is bound by a distance or off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer, the trader shall provide the consumer with the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner:
[..]

r) where applicable, the functionality, including applicable technical protection measures, of digital content;

There literally cannot legally be a valid binding contract if this information is not properly passed to the consumer before finalizing the contract.

[m662]

引用自 potato：

denuvo isn't part of any launchers and numerous games don't disclose denuvo, see above

What is your point with that were going into circles. Does it violate laws than it needs to be mentioned if not than it does not have to. If it involves data retrieval they have to mention it in there privacy policy along with providing contact information to a data protection officer (DPO) and you have to explicitly agree to the use if your law requires that of a company like EU has.

DRM is not considered special mention able for law it is that simple. You might not like it and that is understandable but its not against the law to not plaster any sticker on it that states DRM. The same they do not have to mention that your data is stored on Amazon datacenters explicitly on the store page.

[potato]

what is my point? that's literally what i said from the very first, that there's no law that states you have to disclose drm

引用自 potato：

引用自 Mecha Pengine：

Isn't enigma illegal for them to add? For one, they're not disclosing it on any of the store pages. Second, they're also completely bricking Steam Deck compatibility, especially on titles that were verified by valve themselves to work on the deck. Surely that's false advertising?

valve doesn't have a policy that states you have to disclose drms on store pages

valve also doesn't have a policy that a game must be compatible with steam deck

none of this is "illegal" or against steamworks documentation

if i'm going in circles then it's only cause you were saying otherwise

[RiO]

引用自 potato：

what is my point? that's literally what i said from the very first, that there's no law that states you have to disclose drm

:: cough ::

引用自 RiO：

Look at the 2011/83 EU Directive on consumer rights[eur-lex.europa.eu]. Specifically, article 6 wrt informational requirements for distance and off-premises contracts, which states:

1. Before the consumer is bound by a distance or off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer, the trader shall provide the consumer with the following information in a clear and comprehensible manner:
[..]

r) where applicable, the functionality, including applicable technical protection measures, of digital content;

There literally cannot legally be a valid binding contract if this information is not properly passed to the consumer before finalizing the contract.

[potato]

alright you two need to make up your mind then

[m662]

Because again its governed by privacy law not by Steam.
The publisher of the product is the one that has to make sure that you get the correct information *before* purchase. Which means reading privacy policy and terms and conditions before hand as buyer. Those need to be revised if the data collection also changes.

Now if any of those games do not state data collection have no shown privacy policy before purchase or installation they are in violation and I highly recommend reporting it.

引用自 RiO：

There literally cannot legally be a valid binding contract if this information is not properly passed to the consumer before finalizing the contract.

And yes RiO I am aware of what you mentioned I should have clarified that before my last reply I have it never seen enforced in that way though unless it did data collection not in the sense of gaming media that is.

[RiO]

引用自 potato：

alright you two need to make up your mind then

We're both right, actually.

What I stated wrt informational requirements on the presence of technical protection measures, blatantly applies - as you can see with the direct reference to the legal text of the directive that all EU member states had to implement in national law.

And what m662 stated wrt having to inform consumers about how their data is being processed and for what purposes, also applies from the perspective of the GDPR. As well as needing a proper legal ground for processing that data. (One of which can be informed consent, though other grounds such as legal requirements or legitimate interest, might also be applicable.) The core question there is whether any DRM or anti-tamperware; obfuscators; etc. - actually processes what the GDPR would consider personally identifiable information. Because anything outside of that domain is outside the scope of the GDPR.


Upcoming though, is still the EU E-privacy Regulation, which in its current drafts still states that it will further require upfront informed consent for any use of computing resources on your device by digital content or a digital service that falls outside the norm of the core intents of the product or service being supplied.

And this would actually be where the real 'fun' starts, because the E-privacy Regulation is slated to have the same penalties attached to it as the GDPR does: up to 4% annual world-wide turnover in fines.

Forgetting to state that some ancillary DRM is present and will suck up CPU cycles, could become quite costly at that point.

[m662]

引用自 RiO：

引用自 potato：

alright you two need to make up your mind then

We're both right, actually.

What I stated wrt informational requirements on the presence of technical protection measures, blatantly applies - as you can see with the direct reference to the legal text of the directive that all EU member states had to implement in national law.

And what m662 stated wrt having to inform consumers about how their data is being processed and for what purposes, also applies from the perspective of the GDPR. As well as needing a proper legal ground for processing that data. (One of which can be informed consent, though other grounds such as legal requirements or legitimate interest, might also be applicable.) The core question there is whether any DRM or anti-tamperware; obfuscators; etc. - actually processes what the GDPR would consider personally identifiable information. Because anything outside of that domain is outside the scope of the GDPR.


Upcoming though, is still the EU E-privacy Regulation, which in its current drafts still states that it will further require upfront informed consent for any use of computing resources on your device by digital content or a digital service that falls outside the norm of the core intents of the product or service being supplied.

And this would actually be where the real 'fun' starts, because the E-privacy Regulation is slated to have the same penalties attached to it as the GDPR does: up to 4% annual world-wide turnover in fines.

Forgetting to state that some ancillary DRM is present and will suck up CPU cycles, could become quite costly at that point.

The irony behind the EU-Privacy Regulation is that at the same time there are now talks planned of the grid about how to handle security with End Two End encryption (E2E)
In other-words Microsoft Amazon and a whole bunch of others are going to discuss how to get government sanctioned back-doors in all communication for security purposes.
https://edri.org/our-work/european-commission-discusses-going-dark-behind-closed-doors/

https://fragdenstaat.de/anfrage/june-and-november-meetings-of-the-hleg-on-access-to-data-for-effective-law-enforcement/848493/anhang/document10-scopingpaperforthehigh-levelexpertgrouponaccesstodataforeffectivelawenforcement.pdf

[Castyles]

引用自 MSXCF：

It is very sad when game developers drive customers into piracy.

What a time to be alive.

[Piston Smashed™]

引用自 MSXCF：

It is very sad when game developers drive customers into piracy.

The developers nor anybody else are driving any one to pirating games. That is just a very poor excuse of someone trying to justify themselves of pirating games.

[Castyles]

引用自 Piston Smashed™：

引用自 MSXCF：

It is very sad when game developers drive customers into piracy.

The developers nor anybody else are driving any one to pirating games. That is just a very poor excuse of someone trying to justify themselves of pirating games.

Shifting the blame, huh. Nice try.

If they didn't wanted to drive customers away they wouldn't punish said customers with DRM on top of DRM plus third-party launchers that require another account.

Such sEcUriTy features only break performance i.e ruin the fun and are just an annoyance, overall, because they can't even prevent ♥♥♥♥ since the pirates always walk away without any of that crap ruining their games.

Valve must SERIOUSLY return to their roots. Thanks to such moronic companies, like Capcom, Steam is no longer offering the best service and that's, unfortunately, a fact.

[potato]

引用自 Castyles：

Shifting the blame, huh. Nice try.

nope, just saying that a publisher making bad decisions doesn't entitle you to free games

if you don't want to buy their games for it, that's understandable, but if you're not buying it so you could pirate it, that's just making up excuses to justify piracy

引用自 Castyles：

Valve must SERIOUSLY return to their roots. Thanks to such moronic companies, like Capcom, Steam is no longer offering the best service and that's, unfortunately, a fact.

what roots? valve created steamworks, that's a drm

[Piston Smashed™]

引用自 Castyles：

引用自 Piston Smashed™：

The developers nor anybody else are driving any one to pirating games. That is just a very poor excuse of someone trying to justify themselves of pirating games.

Shifting the blame, huh. Nice try.

If they didn't wanted to drive customers away they wouldn't punish said customers with DRM on top of DRM plus third-party launchers that require another account.

Such sEcUriTy features only break performance i.e ruin the fun and are just an annoyance, overall, because they can't even prevent ♥♥♥♥ since the pirates always walk away without any of that crap ruining their games.

Valve must SERIOUSLY return to their roots. Thanks to such moronic companies, like Capcom, Steam is no longer offering the best service and that's, unfortunately, a fact.

Developers are allowed to have their own installers, get over it I doubt it'll change. Security features breaks performance? Never had any problems myself with DRM and have been PC gaming for a long time.

I've been hearing how developers are driving away gamers or that PC gaming is dying because of DRM in one form or another for last 25 years or so and yet it is always growing...

Because a game has DRM is not an excuse to pirate games. It is just a way for someone to verify to themselves that it is OK for them not buying the games they are playing. If you are going to pirate games at least grow a pair and just admit that you pirate games because you don't want to pay for them.

[Castyles]

引用自 potato：

引用自 Castyles：

Shifting the blame, huh. Nice try.

nope, just saying that a publisher making bad decisions doesn't entitle you to free games

if you don't want to buy their games for it, that's understandable, but if you're not buying it so you could pirate it, that's just making up excuses to justify piracy

引用自 Castyles：

Valve must SERIOUSLY return to their roots. Thanks to such moronic companies, like Capcom, Steam is no longer offering the best service and that's, unfortunately, a fact.

what roots? valve created steamworks, that's a drm

First things first: You're blocked because you just keep trolling everywhere and I've no patience for crap such as this so I won't reply, further.

However...

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem.

If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store then the pirate's service is more valuable."

"Prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become Steam's largest market in Europe."

"Our success comes from making sure that both customers and partners feel like they get a lot of value from those services, and that they can trust us not to take advantage of the relationship that we have with them."

Words from the man, himself. Make of that as you will. I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ about your opinion, either way.