this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
293 points (97.1% liked)

PC Gaming

8563 readers
882 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GuStJaR@lemmy.world 124 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

This is such BS. They claim there are challenges with testing whether or not Denuvo causes performance issues but aren't there 100s of games with Denuvo that have been cracked that clearly perform better than the legitimate versions? They talk about either the devs doing it or they themselves doing it but people don't want to publish the results. If the results are that there is no performance hit, then surely that's something everyone would want to show. It obviously does hit performance which is why they won't publish it.

They also say Denuvo helps developers save up to 20% of revenue that they would not have otherwise received due to piracy. How do they even know that? You can't compare two different games and you can't release the same game twice for people to buy twice. The fact that they also say "up to" suggests this is also bollocks!

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 42 points 3 weeks ago

Those metrics are bollocks.

For Denuvo, you don't need their data. Plenty of games let you play a week before release, then add Denuvo, wait a few months, then remove. During Denuvo days, there is a flood of poor reviews associated with performance.

For the 20%, they just invented a number, there is no real base for that, at least not a solid one. I wonder if Denuvo takes in account the number of games returned because of them.

A long time ago, a game distributor was a guest lecturer to a class I was taking, and I learned a bunch there. For piracy, it seems that their company navigate the seven seas to count downloads and estimate black market sales, multiply by the game price, and assume that was lost revenue caused by piracy. It was very weird, as some games piracy numbers were 100 times bigger than the amount sold and sounded like they were losing billions of dollars in revenue per game because of that. I asked if they really think they would sell that number of games if there was no piracy, if the people pirating games would buy/could afford the full price they took in account - they went from a well-formed teacher to straight red face mouth foaming dogma discourse. There is a lot of money in DRM, and it seems they want to keep that way with doctrine and/or bribery.

For the class, we (students) had to do a market research, and of our small reach (local game forums, malls and where people buy pirated CDs - this was a long time ago), we did not meet a single person self identified as pirate, who would buy a game they want to play if the pirated version was not available, either free from web or street vendors, they would just play something else they could find and afford. That did not bode well with the guest lecturer, but a lot of our findings about piracy narrowed it down to availability, price and convenience - well, there was a minor percentage of people that would always and only pirate for the most diverse reasons even if they could afford the game.

[–] PrinzKasper@feddit.org 30 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Afaik most Denuvo cracks are actually just bypasses, as in Denuvo is still there and running, it's just tricked into thinking everything is fine. However there are plenty of games that launched with Denuvo but had it removed through updates some time after launch that allow us to compare: https://youtu.be/07NMuobVVwQ

[–] gila@lemm.ee 14 points 3 weeks ago

Wild Hearts comes to mind. Koei Tecmo PC ports are bad at the best of times, but many of the performance problems present in the Steam version mysteriously don't exist on the EA app version which released a few months later without Denuvo. Just like, buy the game again if you want your product to work I guess.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Up to 20% or more!!!

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 108 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

"Gamers"? Who else do they think is even going to encounter their shit? If the people that are forced to endure your shit aren't happy, seems like a you problem.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem are Customers, who don't just accept things that bring zero benefits for them whilst making their life worse.

But worry not, Denuvo does a great job at getting rid of those.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Denuvo's customers are corporations, not consumers. "We had a poor reputation because of gamers. CEOs who aren't gamers love us!"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 88 points 3 weeks ago

and Gamers

So the end-user for all the things their DRM is in.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 80 points 3 weeks ago (16 children)

Pirates & gamers

Lets blame 100% of the demographic we are fucking over. No wonder they get along so well with big devs.

[–] mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world 39 points 3 weeks ago

I mean they aren’t wrong, due to piracy we know how awful the performance impact of Denuvo on games is (^:

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 69 points 3 weeks ago

So basically their whole thing boils down to "The people who don't like us are the people we're trying to stop anyway, and everyone else is just wrong when they don't like us." When challenged on things like performance impacts they insist that they can't provide metrics, because it would be difficult to get permission, and even if they did nobody would believe them anyway. Any time a third party provides those metrics, though, those are lies because those third parties are all pirates. So again, everyone who doesn't like Denuvo is actually just wrong, at least according to Denuvo.

This effort at defending themselves is just so hilariously bad. Not only did they utterly fail to make themselves look any better in any way, the absolute shallowness of their answers makes them look so much worse.

Fuck Denuvo, absolute bunch of clowns, the lot of them.

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 65 points 3 weeks ago

"It's the pirates' fault because they prove we're full of shit"

[–] weew@lemmy.ca 59 points 3 weeks ago

Denuvo blames its low reputation on anyone who has experienced its product

[–] n1ck_n4m3@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

Uh huh. Speaking as someone who (stupidly) bought Star Wars Jedi Survivor at launch and expected a 12900KF and a 4090 to be able to play it stably -- the game ran like absolute shit until the patch where they announced they removed Denuvo. They'd done all manner of patching to that point which made absolutely no difference for the majority of people, but miraculously, when they removed Denuvo the performance across the board was exponentially higher. Traversal stutter is still there, but it's extremely minor and is aligned now with every other UE4 game's traversal stutter.

But yeah, I guess that was just a surprising coincidence that the performance issues almost entirely resolved themselves the moment Denuvo was removed, and that they didn't in the previous 8 patches.

Fuck Denuvo.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] luciole@beehaw.org 38 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ullman's argumentation is very wiggly when it comes to impact on performance. On one hand, he claims there's very little proof, on the other hand he claims there is no point producing proof because they wouldn't be believed. Furthermore he says their hands are tied as they'd need their client's approval to publish such numbers, conveniently ignoring the possibility of anonymizing and grouping data. Remember they state to being included in 70-80 games yearly.

Finally, and this is an old song, but anyways: preventing loss in sales due to piracy is an exercise in wishful thinking. The amount of pirate players who would have paid in an alternate universe with no cracked version can't be reliably estimated.

load more comments (1 replies)

Stupid fuckin gamers and their "standards" and all of their complaining about "poor performance" because we're basically requiring they run the game in a virtual machine that constantly stops to check if it's pirated

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 34 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So they have a great reputation with people who aren't gamers?

[–] ColonelThirtyTwo@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, the C level execs!

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 33 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Oh? Does this mean they are finally starting to actually lose business because of how shitty the product is?

They wouldn't be whining about being hated if it didn't impact their bottom line...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 31 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This would be great job if it weren’t for all the people vibes

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Existence be like that sometimes

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 24 points 3 weeks ago

Lmao it’s kinda hilarious, because all the positive PR in the world isn’t going to fix the fact that they’re a shit company with a shit product that only makes products it’s used on worse. Do as much investor spin as you want - that fact will never change, and you’ll still be hated.

[–] Mandy@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, they are right.
Just not in the way they think.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 17 points 3 weeks ago

That’s funny bc it seems their entire job is to steal data and slow down game cracks by a small amount.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 weeks ago
[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 13 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

These things are like door locks. The point is to make it harder to pirate than to pay. This doesn’t mean people won’t pirate. Just like a door lock doesn’t mean people won’t burgle.

If it took a long time to open the door because the lock is too complex, it is the lock maker’s fault not the burglar’s fault. The solution is to buy a new lock.

[–] WordBox@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

Except this lock fills the secured room with molasses. The paying individual now suffers through wading in molasses.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If only they were just locks.

I think it's a better metaphor that they removed all windows, made the walls 2m thick cement and replaced the door with a 10 inch thick heavy steel door.

Absolutelly, it makes it very well protected from unauthorized outsiders just coming in ... at the cost of living in a bunker with no natural sunlight, stale air, mold and having to push a 2 ton door to get in or out.

Now, some people might be ok with living in such a bunker for their own personal protection, but very few are ok with living in a bunker to protect the software in the computer they have in their bunker from being copied.

People are pissed because Denuvo makes their life harder whilst having literally zero upsides for them personally.

[–] Mercuri@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

That's a bad analogy. A door lock protects the user. A door lock can be left unlocked. DRM does nothing to improve the user experience and it frequently punishes paying customers. Even the best, least hated DRM will negatively affect legitimate users by its very nature. And Denuvo is one of the worst.

If you want to use the door analogy, it's like every time you want to open the door you need to call the door company and give them the serial number that's on the door to show that you bought an authentic door. And any one else trying to open your door can also give the number written on the door because the company only cares that it was a legally purchased door and not about protecting the user.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 3 weeks ago

Ah yes definitely not because their shit software hinders performance

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago

Imagine stating you are unable to get third parties to agree to release metrics on game performance, then turning around and saying that when third parties give metrics that they're wrong.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

denuvo execs are going on the list.

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm not well versed in how Denuvo works, only in how it tanks performance. Does anyone know if there is anything stopping Denuvo from checking purchase validity the first time, and on subsequent game launches it can access a secure folder with a file like an internet cookie saying "yeah, this game was bought legit at one point, let it run" and then not run alongside the game?

[–] SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

That would be entirely too easily bypassed. Also, afaik, it's kinda what Denuvo does when it's offline. You can take a file from a legitimate install- I don't know how/which one- and put it in a pirated copy and Denuvo will work fine.. for two days. Then the little certificate or w.e. expires, and you've gotta get another one.

[–] _Cid_@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Well such a cookie could probably be copied by pirates as well

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Is this a real gaming news website? Seems sketch af. There was another article posted from here yesterday that also looked questionable.

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Well, when your DRM software is utter shit that it leads gamers to pirate games you're not going to have the best reputation.

load more comments
view more: next ›