4 ms·
It has been a net positive for the _sales_ of PC gaming, but it has been awful for the actual end user, as any DRM scheme is. DRM schemes effectively destroy t
by phone8675309 3y ago
It has been a net positive for the _sales_ of PC gaming, but it has been awful for the actual end user, as any DRM scheme is. DRM schemes effectively destroy the first sale doctrine by their very nature, which is a straight up infringement on consumer rights.
There have been plenty of documented cases where Denuvo checks actually make the framerates of games unstable on hardware that just meets the recommended requirements. Denuvo prevents game modding, an accepting practice that goes back nearly a quarter century. Denuvo prevents consumers from backing up their games should the storefront they're shopping at go down. Accepting Denuvo represent ceding some control of your machine to the company that develops Denuvo.
There is a part of me that hopes someone finds a 0day in Denuvo and starts destroying people's computers in online lobbies so people rethink the whole thing.
- BoorishBears 3y agoI'm an adult, so I understand that being good for sales is good for a primarily sales driven industry. That is, assuming I don't want PC to become a 3rd class citizen that consistently gets releases a year later because of utterly tepid publisher interest... which is where PCs were headed pre-Denuvo. Denuvo isn't perfect, but it's been a very good model especially compared to its predecessors. The DRM itself doesn't use ring 0 (their anti-cheat addon does but again, cheating is a bad enough PC problem to justify it) and it's been removed after being cracked in the past. Overall I'll take PC Gaming with DRM over the alternative.
- hooverd 3y agoI think DRM would be acceptable if we chopped copyright down to 20 years and forbid the use of DRM on content after that. That or require any application of DRM to support all devices it's used for the duration of the work's (so 95 years) copyright by law.