Proposal to Improve Player Experience — Ban Denuvo and Make Demo Mandatory

[LORD_07]

Hello Steam team and developers,

As an active player and game buyer on your platform, I would like to propose an important improvement that would increase trust in games and enhance user convenience:

Ban the use of Denuvo and other intrusive DRM systems.
Denuvo often reduces game performance, causes compatibility issues, and does not effectively prevent piracy. Instead of harming legitimate players, it would be better to abandon this protection.

Make demo versions of games mandatory. (Make demo versions of games mandatory in Steam’s policy)
Demos give players the chance to try a game before buying, avoid disappointment, and save money. This will increase user satisfaction and encourage more informed purchases.

I am confident that these changes will make Steam an even more attractive platform, help build a strong and loyal gaming community, and ultimately increase game sales in the long run.

Remember, piracy isn’t just a problem — it can also act as a form of advertising and promotion. It helps make the game more popular, attracts more attention, and grows the community around it.

Thank you for your attention and your work!

[Boblin the Goblin]

Valve actually encourages devs to incorporated 3rd party DRM if they want. They aren't going to ban one of them because a small subset of users get upset about it.

They aren't going to force devs to upkeep two projects to also appease a small subset of users.

[LORD_07]

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Valve actually encourages devs to incorporated 3rd party DRM if they want. They aren't going to ban one of them because a small subset of users get upset about it.

They aren't going to force devs to upkeep two projects to also appease a small subset of users.

Thanks for your opinion! I understand that Valve wants to give developers freedom of choice, and that user opinions can vary.

However, it’s precisely because of the negative impact of DRM, especially systems like Denuvo, that many players suffer from performance issues, stability problems, and inconveniences during installation and updates.

My position is that if the platform sets clear rules to minimize harm to players (such as banning intrusive DRM and making demos mandatory), it will not only increase trust and loyalty among users but ultimately benefit the developers as well, through a more stable player base and a better reputation.

I understand that this might be challenging for some developers, but the long-term benefits of a satisfied and loyal community often outweigh the short-term inconveniences.

What do you think, could there be a compromise that works for both developers and players?

[Tanoomba]

Games are already forced to divulge whether they include Denuvo. A lot of people don't really care if games contain Denuvo (it has never affected my play experience with any game at all) so forcing such games off of Steam would reduce our choices as consumers, which would be extra counter-productive since this problem is already solved by people simply not buying games that contain Denuvo if they don't want to.

Also, while I'm sure there are plenty of people who appreciate demos, they hold no interest to me at all. In fact, I consider the clutter they add to the storefront annoying. I can't imagine what a nightmare navigating the store would be if every single game had a demo (which is to say nothing about how restrictive that would be for indie developers).

The more restrictions and conditions Valve imposes on developers, the less choices we have as consumers. I think Valve's mostly hands-off approach ultimately works to our advantage, letting us decide for ourselves what we want.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

Neither one of those things is going to happen.

People dont seem to understand that Steam is a STORE. They dont control the developers of every video game or even a tiny percentage of them. Would you make these ridiculous demands to Walmart or GameStop who, like Valve, have nothing to do with the creation or ownership of those games/properties and simply sell a product?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by LORD_07:

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Valve actually encourages devs to incorporated 3rd party DRM if they want. They aren't going to ban one of them because a small subset of users get upset about it.

They aren't going to force devs to upkeep two projects to also appease a small subset of users.

Thanks for your opinion! I understand that Valve wants to give developers freedom of choice, and that user opinions can vary.

However, it’s precisely because of the negative impact of DRM, especially systems like Denuvo, that many players suffer from performance issues, stability problems, and inconveniences during installation and updates.

My position is that if the platform sets clear rules to minimize harm to players (such as banning intrusive DRM and making demos mandatory), it will not only increase trust and loyalty among users but ultimately benefit the developers as well, through a more stable player base and a better reputation.

I understand that this might be challenging for some developers, but the long-term benefits of a satisfied and loyal community often outweigh the short-term inconveniences.

What do you think, could there be a compromise that works for both developers and players?

Players can simply not buy those games.

There's the compromise.

[LORD_07]

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

Games are already forced to divulge whether they include Denuvo. A lot of people don't really care if games contain Denuvo (it has never affected my play experience with any game at all) so forcing such games off of Steam would reduce our choices as consumers, which would be extra counter-productive since this problem is already solved by people simply not buying games that contain Denuvo if they don't want to.

Also, while I'm sure there are plenty of people who appreciate demos, they hold no interest to me at all. In fact, I consider the clutter they add to the storefront annoying. I can't imagine what a nightmare navigating the store would be if every single game had a demo (which is to say nothing about how restrictive that would be for indie developers).

The more restrictions and conditions Valve imposes on developers, the less choices we have as consumers. I think Valve's mostly hands-off approach ultimately works to our advantage, letting us decide for ourselves what we want.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, I appreciate the thoughtful response!

You're absolutely right that Steam currently requires disclosure of Denuvo, and I agree that transparency is a good thing. But for many players, just knowing a game has Denuvo isn’t always enough, especially when performance issues, crashes, or restrictions don’t become apparent until after purchase. It’s not always as simple as "don’t buy it" when marketing and reviews might not mention those drawbacks clearly.

As for demo, I get that they aren’t for everyone, and I respect that. But for players who are undecided, cautious with their spending, or have limited hardware, demos can be a huge help. They empower informed decisions, reduce refund requests, and increase trust, especially with new or unfamiliar games.

I’m not advocating for Valve to be overly strict, but I believe having optional protections for consumers as a default expectation (like a demo or a DRM-free option) would raise the overall quality and transparency of the storefront. And regarding indie devs, they might actually benefit from demos, as it gives people a safe way to try something new from an unknown developer.

Ultimately, I think both of our views come from a desire for consumer choice, we just approach it differently. I totally respect your take

[LORD_07]

Originally posted by AmsterdamHeavy:

Neither one of those things is going to happen.

People dont seem to understand that Steam is a STORE. They dont control the developers of every video game or even a tiny percentage of them. Would you make these ridiculous demands to Walmart or GameStop who, like Valve, have nothing to do with the creation or ownership of those games/properties and simply sell a product?

Thanks for your input, I get where you’re coming from.

Yes, Steam is a store, but it’s not just any store. It’s a digital platform that provides the infrastructure for distribution, marketing, DRM integration, multiplayer services, and more. Valve may not own the games, but they absolutely do set policies and standards for what gets published and how it’s presented, just like Apple does on the App Store or Sony on PlayStation.

I'm not demanding that Valve control every aspect of game development. I'm simply suggesting setting user-friendly standards, like requiring clear consumer options (e.g. demo or less intrusive DRM). This isn't about ownership, it's about responsibility.

Steam has the power to shape trends and developer behavior, and with that comes a certain level of responsibility to the community that supports it. Just as they already enforce things like refund policies or content rules, they could encourage better practices, not to control developers, but to support and protect customers.

[Tanoomba]

Originally posted by LORD_07:

You're absolutely right that Steam currently requires disclosure of Denuvo, and I agree that transparency is a good thing. But for many players, just knowing a game has Denuvo isn’t always enough, especially when performance issues, crashes, or restrictions don’t become apparent until after purchase.

But I have several games that contain Denuvo, and none of them have ever had performance issues, crashes or restrictions. You're suggesting that I should not have been able to buy or enjoy those games.

Originally posted by LORD_07:

It’s not always as simple as "don’t buy it" when marketing and reviews might not mention those drawbacks clearly.

What's the difference between games with Denuvo not being available on Steam and people not buying games with Denuvo? From the anti-Denuvo consumer's standpoint, the result of both is exactly the same thing. If you think Denuvo shouldn't be allowed at all then don't buy any games that contain Denuvo at all. After all, if you're suggesting that some games with Denuvo might run just fine (which has regularly been the case for me), then why push for a blanket ban that would make such games unavailable?

Originally posted by LORD_07:

As for demo, I get that they aren’t for everyone, and I respect that. But for players who are undecided, cautious with their spending, or have limited hardware, demos can be a huge help. They empower informed decisions, reduce refund requests, and increase trust, especially with new or unfamiliar games.

And they require more work from dev studios, and several studios have said that making demos has not helped them and wasn't worth the effort, and it would add tremendous clutter to the storefront. Best to allow studios to make demos if they choose, but forcing them to is not a good idea.

[RiO]

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Valve actually encourages devs to incorporated 3rd party DRM if they want.

I wouldn't call a statement that boils down to a paraphrased: "If you want to add DRM; you're free to bolt it on yourself, we're not going to do it for you via Steam - because it doesn't align with our philosophy," a form of encouragement.

I'd call it a form of: "well, if you really insist on being that stupid-- it's your party..."

Originally posted by LORD_07:

However, it’s precisely because of the negative impact of DRM, especially systems like Denuvo

Denuvo is relatively benign compared to other DRM schemes like Tages; or actual hardware-enforced schemes before it - like Starforce (which used to literally wreck DVD drives).

Denuvo gets a bad rep for negatively affecting game performance due to developers implementing it poorly. Denuvo itself always advocates against whole-encrypting a game with it; and especially against encrypting the 'hot paths' of a game engine. They always recommend to analyze the game for a few critical but otherwise not performance-sensitive sections of code and apply the DRM to those.

Those games using Denuvo whose performance tanks?
Incompetent developers; or developers forced by incompetent publishers to go against Denuvo's guidance and crank things up to the maximum - because more 'obviously' is better. /s

This isn't an uncommon attitude with publishers at all. One doesn't need to look farther than Ubisoft, which loves to double-dip DRM schemes and whose CEO in years gone by has literally stated they'll keep doing it because it is the conviction of the company's leadership that 99% of PC gamers are opportunity pirates and without draconic countermeasures would steal the game. So if that means worse performance, they can all just suffer it; or suffer no games at all.

[Crazy Tiger]

This suggestion is not "improving the player experience", that's just "gimme what I want".

[LORD_07]

1.
And I’m glad to hear you haven’t personally experienced any issues with Denuvo. That’s totally valid, and I’m not saying your experience is wrong.

However, many other players do report performance drops, stuttering, longer load times, and even crashes in certain games that use Denuvo, especially on lower-end or mid systems. There are documented cases where performance improved noticeably once Denuvo was removed in release patches

2.
Ohh...that’s a hard one to answer.

But look at games like The Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk 2077 and other games, completely DRM-free and still sold millions. They didn’t need Denuvo to succeed. In fact, they gained more trust from players because of that.

Let’s be real, most of us (like 80% at least) don’t like Denuvo. And in the end, we suffer from performance drops or issues.

So yeah, I’m not trying to ban games people enjoy, I just think Denuvo does more harm than good.

3.
Hmmmm..hmmm...
I totally get where you’re coming from, and yeah, making demo can take extra effort, especially for small teams. But I don’t think the goal should be to “force” demo in a rigid way, it’s more about encouraging a standard that benefits both players and devs in the long run.

Many players are more likely to try and eventually buy something they can test first, especially from lesser-known studios. A good demo can be like free marketing, it builds trust, reduces refund rates, and gets people talking. Even something small like a limited intro or a timed trial can do the job.

As for the storefront being cluttered, Steam already has filters and categories. Demo could easily be shown as an optional tag, not shoved in anyone’s face.

So yeah, not every dev might benefit from a demo right away, but it’s a tool that can work really well when done right. More choice for the player, more transparency for the store, that’s a win for everyone, I think.

higher [Tanoomba]

[LORD_07]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

This suggestion is not "improving the player experience", that's just "gimme what I want".

I understand that this may come across as simply a “give me what I want” request. However, it is about establishing a balanced policy that benefits both players and developers. Increasing transparency and reducing intrusive DRM usage builds user trust in the platform and encourages long-term support for games.

This is not a demand for freebies or unfair advantages, but rather a proposal to improve the user experience, reduce negative feedback, and promote fair and transparent practices within the industry.

And please, if you disagree with my idea, refrain from simple dismissive comments. If you have a thoughtful opinion, I would be happy to hear it :)

[LORD_07]

Originally posted by RiO:

However, Denuvo is relatively benign compared to other DRM schemes like Tages; or actual hardware-enforced schemes before it - like Starforce (which used to literally wreck DVD drives).

Denuvo gets a bad rep for negatively affecting game performance due to developers implementing it poorly. Denuvo itself always advocates against whole-encrypting a game with it; and especially against encrypting the 'hot paths' of a game engine. They always recommend to analyze the game for a few critical but otherwise not performance-sensitive sections of code and apply the DRM to those.

Those games using Denuvo whose performance tanks?
Incompetent developers; or developers forced by incompetent publishers to go against Denuvo's guidance and crank things up to the maximum - because more 'obviously' is better.

This isn't an uncommon attitude with publishers at all. One doesn't need to look farther than Ubisoft, which loves to double-dip DRM schemes and whose CEO in years gone by has literally stated they'll keep doing it because it is the conviction of the company's leadership that 99% of PC gamers are opportunity pirates and without draconic countermeasures would steal the game. So if that means worse performance, they can all just suffer it; or suffer no games at all.

Oh, I hadn’t thought about it that way. If that’s the case, I understand. I don’t have any more questions then. Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation! :)

[Deadoon]

Originally posted by LORD_07:

Remember, piracy isn’t just a problem — it can also act as a form of advertising and promotion. It helps make the game more popular, attracts more attention, and grows the community around it.

Long dashes, vac banned and oddly fluent in a language different than their profile.

Looks like another AI generated thread.

[Tanoomba]

Originally posted by LORD_07:

However, many other players do report performance drops, stuttering, longer load times, and even crashes in certain games that use Denuvo, especially on lower-end or mid systems.

Then THEY can avoid games with Denuvo. Why should I not have access to games I like because other people experience issues I don't have?

Originally posted by LORD_07:

Let’s be real, most of us (like 80% at least) don’t like Denuvo. And in the end, we suffer from performance drops or issues.

No, "most of us" don't know what Denuvo is. Even among the minority who know and understand Denuvo, only a small minority actually care about it.

Originally posted by LORD_07:

So yeah, I’m not trying to ban games people enjoy, I just think Denuvo does more harm than good.

Then don't buy games that include it. Problem solved.

Originally posted by LORD_07:

But I don’t think the goal should be to “force” demo in a rigid way, it’s more about encouraging a standard that benefits both players and devs in the long run.

But your suggestion is literally to force them. You can make a list of reasons why you think demos are good, but that doesn't mean dev studios should be obligated to make them.

Again, there are reasons why studios may choose NOT to release a demo. Besides the extra time and money investment required to create one, they need to worry about:
- What if people enjoy the demo enough that they feel no need to buy the game?
- What if it undercuts the hype behind the game (players scratched their itch with the demo and are no longer hyped about the full game)?
- What if the demo doesn't do a good enough job communicating what the game is about?
- What if the demo is too short, frustrating players? What if it's too long, giving away too much of what's in the full game?

And, of course, there are certain games that lend themselves better to demos than others. A racing game can get away with offering a small selection of tracks and vehicles, but a lengthy action-RPG needs to establish the plot, introduce the game's primary mechanics, and allow the players to get used to how it plays without making them feel like they are getting the rug pulled out from under them when things are just getting started.

Really, it shouldn't be up to anyone but the studio itself whether a demo is a worthwhile investment.