There are 2 schools of thought. Those that are against the entire concept of software that tries to control how you use it, drm/anticheat/etc in any form is malware to them. And those that accept it might be acceptable in principle (eg for anticheat especially), but believe denouvo and certain other drm programs go too far and cross a line (especially when they hook into the kernel or start tracking things outside the game that they have no business tracking).
Comment on Steam now generates three times more revenue for Capcom than PlayStation
duchess@feddit.org 3 weeks ago[deleted]
scratchee@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Yeah, I draw the line at the kernel.
If they want to protect against piracy (losing game IMO) or try to limit cheating, that’s fine as long as it doesn’t impact gameplay (i.e. I can still party SP offline) and it keeps working in 20 years when they’ve stopped supporting the game. If that means releasing a patch to remove server interaction when they shut the servers down, that’s fine.
I am not okay with needing to install a kernel module just to play a game. That’s a security risk, prevents compatibility tools like WINE from preserving the game, and makes the game more fragile (will a kernel update break the game?). That’s a red line for me, and I refuse to play any game with kernel-level DRM or anti-cheat.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It exists solely to rob consumers of ownership of their purchases. It can, has, and will continue to result in people losing access to products they have paid for and to which have every right. Performance impact is beside the point. DRM is theft and Denuvo is the worst.
duchess@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
A license is not owned, it is granted. A license is effectively a rental or lease. The words “buy”, “purchase”, etc are incompatible with the concept of licensing. If a thing is sold using words or terminology that imply ownership, then it is owned.
I am not talking about legalities, I am talking about ethics. Laws have been carefully designed to enable and protect corporate theft. Implying a sale while not conveying ownership is theft. Taking measures to ensure consumers cannot own the things they understand they have purchased it theft. Theft is theft and defending it is also unethical.
duchess@feddit.org 3 weeks ago