Denuvo Anti-tamper (Yes/No or toxic view) risky post?

[Elmo]

Looking at Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands in the sale: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4...con_Wildlands/.
I would of got it but, it uses
*Denuvo Anti-tamper DRM
*Ubisoft Launcher DRM(eww)
*Steams DRM
*In apps purchases(micro-transactions)
*season passes year 1and 2
*separate DLC.

Ok, i pass on that game.

To simulate not having access to the Denuvo Database before starting your game add the following to your hosts file,
then try playing your Denuvo games(must be first time launch of game).
127.0.0.1 srv01.codefusion.technology
127.0.0.1 srv02.codefusion.technology
127.0.0.1 srv03.codefusion.technology
127.0.0.1 support.codefusion.technology

I blocked the above on a fresh install of windows and could not play any of my Denuvo Games, but of course that's expected.

I know all protections phone home and take up resources. I haven't got anything against protection, because I have many Denuvo protected games, but is there even an argument that Denuvo should be removed and is there evidence with Denuvo's latest iteration of it slowing games?

Knowing that if a game can be played that it can be cracked.

Site note: I'm dreaded the day all games are streamed from servers no files, but that would be 100% protected, because only what you need to see and controls only need be sent back and fourth to game no download files on Hdd apart from Launcher. I'm not dreading it if: it works amazingly over many peoples networks and never gets cut off due to e.g. bad weather or server stability.

Does Denuvo put you off buying a game(or any DRM)? (asking this on Steam is like putting one leg in the mouth of a Lion who is a hardcore fan of the game and hoping he/she will not bite.)

Added note: I'm fine with all Protection of IP even PSnow game streaming type services, providing it is fair to the customer buying or renting(e.g. PSnow)the IP.

Another approach:
Here Is PROOF As To Why DRM Is Absolutely Terrible For Video Games. ReviewTechUSA

117,125 views(date of post edit)


Likes 6K Dislikes 161 (date of post edit)

[Phabe Jewell]

but there's ubisoft tho

[Astraea]

I don't know. Ask the publishers. I don't think the devs have a say in it.

[Phabe Jewell]

DRM for games is a move that says: 'people inherently steal, so i'm gonna lock it up for everyone and if you want to play the game you bought you have to ask me first'.

Make of that what you will, but trust is the most valued marker for successful and healthy trade.

DRM is one of the worst things made in videogame history it literally begs the game to be pirated how could you be for such a thing?

[fenrif]

DRM for games is a move that says: 'people inherently steal, so i'm gonna lock it up for everyone and if you want to play the game you bought you have to ask me first'.

Make of that what you will, but trust is the most valued marker for successful and healthy trade.

No, DRM is a move that says "some people will make unauthorised copies of this game, and I want them to have a better experience than the people who will pay me money for said game!"

[Phabe Jewell]

I'm a "try before I buy" type of guy, if I like the game I pirated I'll buy it if I don't well nothing of value was lost. I want to be a game Developer someday and I will expect people will pirate instead of paying for it and if like my product 9 out of 10 people will most likely buy it.

[Merlin]

I buy all the games I can on GoG for this reason. The irony is that cracked versions of games with DRM run better. So it is better to use unauthorized versions of the game. What a shame.

[Noobc0re]

[Astraea]

DRM for games is a move that says: 'people inherently steal, so i'm gonna lock it up for everyone and if you want to play the game you bought you have to ask me first'.

Make of that what you will, but trust is the most valued marker for successful and healthy trade.

[Baron Baldric]

[SpicyLemones]

DRMs are clearly unnecessary, and intrusive DRMs lke DENUVO only serve to make it worse, if it was necessary the gaming industry would have crashed by now and indie gaming wouldn't exist at all.


Refer to Witcher 3 and every successful indie title for proof.

[Elmo]

If i have been harsh in some of my post in this thread i apologize especially to Aidy , i think i took him out of context, rather than take his examples i took them out of context and probably over exerted my opinion to the point of total dismissal.

Certainly a heated discussion, nothing like some heat to get the blood pumping.

So in summary of the thread, DRM is not ideal and can effect the customer, but it's a necessary evil?
IT's my opinion, please feel free to disagree!

Oh and Happy Xmas and New Year. Lets start the New Year on a positive.

[Aidy]

I'm neither advocating for anarchy or slavery. No one is depriving anyone of the fruits of their labour. I'm just making unauthorized copies. Their fruits are still right where they left them.

And what if everybody did that?

[fenrif]

I've already addressed your point of view here in what I laid out originally, but I guess what I would go on to stress about your response is that what you're advocating for, whether you realize it or not, is at best anarchy and at worst slavery. What you're essentially saying here is that you should be able to benefit from the contributions of others without having to pay them. In order to have a civilized and voluntary society, we have to agree that individuals have the right to own their own bodies and to keep the fruits of their labors. The patent office and copyright law are natural extensions of this recognition we extend to individuals in order to allow them to monetize their ideas and creative activities. To say that they should not be allowed to do that is about as unethical of a position as you can possibly take.

Having said that, I hope that you will continue to ponder this issue and consider rethinking your ideas based on our conversation here at some point. Enjoyed speaking with you.

-Ghostflowers

I'm neither advocating for anarchy or slavery. No one is depriving anyone of the fruits of their labour. I'm just making unauthorized copies. Their fruits are still right where they left them. I'm not saying anyone else should be allowed or disallowed to do anything.

Copyright law, as it stands now, is a natural extension of the greed of multinatinal corperations and the politicians they pay to shape the law to their benefit. Patent law is completely different and not really related to the topic at hand. But with the number of patent troll corperations I would suggest this system is also corrupt and broken beyond belief. But I am far less familiar with patents and patent law than I am with copyright.

Copyright and public domain are two sides of the same coin. The idea being that eventually everything that becomes sufficiently popular should enter the public domain. This benefits society as a whole. You invent a cool new way to plant crops. Good for you. But it benefits society more if everyone uses it rather than if you own it completely. Also you can't really own ideas (and that's all data is). Ideas want to be free. So our forefathers set up a system whereby people are allowed to profit off their innovations and inventions for a period of time, before it becomes common property of all. Copyright protects the people who make things, public domain ensures that they are used to the benefit of all society. Also, the fact that eventually your song or story will enter public domain means that creators are forced to keep creating. They can't just make one good song and have their family coast on it for generations.

However public domain is effectively dead. Nothing new enters public domain. Corperations endlessly re-release and rehash old ideas instead of making new things. The system is completely broken. This is terrible for society. It's why our entertainment is stagnating. It's why Hollywood spent the past 20 years endlessly remaking and rebooting and remastering ther old content. It's why video games from 25 years ago are re-released for £10, running on a freeware emulator or with a warez scene crack. This is what I mean by "the social contract has been broken."

You have not adressed my point of view, nor any of the points I made in my last response. You have instead invented a position I am not advocating and adressed that instead. Let me try this technique on you in return: You are advocating that anyone doing anything should always be paid, or else they are a slave. You are suggesting that people are owed a living by society. I just drew a picture on a napkin. How much money am I owed in your mind? I also just hummed a tune to myself. Where do I go to get my paycheck?

I'm a little disappointed you didn't really engage with anything I said in my last post. But you've been cordial so fair play. I hope you also will continue to think on this and consider rethinking your viewpoint. I'm glad this forum is a place where people can disagree politely on complicated topics.

[Baron Baldric]

Companies don't benefit from DRM, they only attack their own consumers, focus on providing a good product to those who can pay is more important than dealing with those who can not afford the game. Now they want to transform the games into services, pay for loot boxes in streaming, they are insane.
Luckily we have GOG.com a DRM-free store.