How does Denuvo remove control from the user over their computer? Did it force them to buy the game, install it, and launch it?
Sorry to be so flippant and appear as a devils advocate for DRM, but as far as I'm aware Denuvo runs with the game. Unlike ie Punkbuster, which is constantly running with way too high permissions.
This is the same argument as saying “well, Apple should make a walled garden and keep taking ownership away from people who buy hardware, and you should just not buy from them!”. No, ownership over a device should be a human right, and so should be ownership over software you purchased. If I want to enjoy a piece of tech or a game, I should be able to do so instead of being handicapped while Denuvo objectively makes the experience worse for legitimate users (while people who pirate enjoy BETTER experience)
>No, ownership over a device should be a human right
I'm really tired of the trend of people declaring whatever policy they want enacted as being "a human right". Yes, having control over the devices you own is something we should push for, but it's nowhere important to be called a human right.
As we’re starting to rely more and more on the technology, be for identification, information, etc I’d argue ownership should be a human right. It may not be necessarily essential today, but we’re heading in that direction
Eh, trusted computing isn't so much about trusting what's running on your machine but trusting that your machine runs other people's code without any pesky modifications. So I'd say being allowed to run more than government/Microsoft/Apple signed code is something to codify.
The underlying sentiment is typically that humans should have the right to live in a comprehensible society that even a below-average person can successfully navigate. Technology threatens this, and it's not just the elderly who fall to the wayside. So while it may annoy you, it is not incorrect to posit that we may need new human rights to deal with this.
>I'm really tired of the trend of people declaring whatever policy they want enacted as being "a human right".
computing became inalienable from human rights when we as a society started asking everyone to conduct mandatory business using them.
paying your bills, gaining access to places, applying for welfare systems, creating doctors appointments, the list goes on -- the things that can be done alternatively over the phone or in-person dwindles as the years tick by.
If we don't claim that certain computing freedoms should be part-and-parcel of human rights then we must wait for the obvious and apparent abuse-of-system to occur and damage society before remediation -- I think we as a society may just have the wisdom to avoid that damage before it happens, but it requires advocacy.
I'm not doubting that computing devices are essential to daily life, but that doesn't really mean we should make it a "human right". If we're adopting that logic, we should also make smartphones (or similar personal computing devices) themselves a human right. After all, what good is control over a device if you don't own one in the first place? While we're at it, let's make cell plans a human right as well, because a smartphone wouldn't be very useful without internet access, and many sites demand a phone number for verification/2fa.
That does sound like a good idea if you put it like that, just not right now. Computers are still a really new field with lots of innovation going on. In the future we might take a government radio-ish approach. Cell (and cable) networks seem easier than roads and cheaper than water.
You’re arguing against the principle of private property. People should be allowed to own things. That’s the most fundamental right humans have. Tech and “innovations” in what counts as consent and an “agreement” have taken that away for most of our most important “purchases”
When you start a Denuvo game, it sends various information about your computer (CPUID, OS information, etc) to Denuvo's servers, and the servers in turn generate a license file. The game exe will contain at least a few hundred functions that are VM obfuscated and will use your license file in combination with your computer information to decrypt parts of the code and continue execution. If you change some aspect of your computer hardware, you update your OS, or if the license file expires, the game will download a new license file from Denuvo's servers on launch.
All of this means that when Denuvo's servers get shut down, any game that hasn't been cracked will no longer run.
I also recall there being concerns over what Denuvo does to SSDs. It basically dramatically increases the number of writes to disk, causing them to wear our much faster than they would otherwise.
Would love to see your sources, everything I've found says that's not actually the case
> Causes excessive HDD/SSD reads/writes which degrades the lifespan of storage drives.
>
> The origins of this rumor are various user reports from 2014 and "tests" performed using Lords of the Fallen and Dragon Age: Inquisition. This has been denied and debunked multiple times by both Denuvo themselves,[13] publishers/developers, and other users since then. As shown in the technical information section, Denuvo Anti-Tamper performs minimal read and write operations to the drive, and there is no benefit to do additional drive reads or writes in terms of security or performance.[14]
I think my issue with the comment I replied to was the appeal to emotion while saying nothing specific about Denuvo.
I feel the ship has sailed on DRM, and that the solution to people feeling slighted because something they purchased contained DRM without them knowing will be stores listing DRM a game uses, not stopping the use of it.
Performance is a space where they can actually make good-faith arguments that their software isn't so bad. Privacy or personal control over one's machine are out the window already.
I'm genuinely mixed... Playing games when so many will cheat isn't fun, and excessive drm and anti cheat suck too and even more considering I run linux, so usually limited via Proton. I know DRM is more than anti cheat, but they're entwined.
I think self host server options and modding helps overcome the cheaters with hands on admins and friend groups. I also get you need to pay the staff and am ok seeing good games make money.
I do wish DRM could have a built in expiration though... even 5-10 years to keep older games playable/portable.
Play games with friends instead of strangers, then cheaters aren't a problem. Cheating can be policed through normal social processes when you aren't using anonymous matchmaking. Game companies made this problem in the first place by taking away the ability of gamers to run their own private servers.
>I'm genuinely mixed... Playing games when so many will cheat isn't fun
simple question : have you encountered an anti-cheat mechanism that works to stop cheaters?
I haven't.
The damage that DRM causes is almost entirely one-sided towards the consumer, aside from the pocketbooks of executives that want to boast about their games licensed anti-cheat mechanisms.
Those that want to cheat may be thrown through another loop, but it doesn't meaningfully stop them -- these people are often technical and interested , anyway. A new challenge for credit on underground forums -- great!
> simple question : have you encountered an anti-cheat mechanism that works to stop cheaters?
Anti-cheat works to reduce the number and frequency of cheaters, not to eliminate cheating completely. It means the difference between meeting cheaters every single game vs meeting cheaters once every 20 games. One means your game is mostly playable and the other means the game is completely unplayable.
This is reasoning of yours is like: "Why use vaccines at all?" "Why use anti-virus programs at all?" "Why use seat belts at all?"
None of these completely eliminate infection, being hacked, and fatalities in motor accidents. But they vastly reduce the number of them occurring.
> simple question : have you encountered an anti-cheat mechanism that works to stop cheaters?
I find them to be rare, but I consider the existence of both cheating and anti-cheat software to be a symptom of a bigger problem: shitty games and shitty game mechanics.
If cheats maximize enjoyment for the cheater playing your game, your game sucks and you should focus on retooling the game to deliver that experience without third party tools.
I won't argue your assessment, but I've played and cheated in enough games to have an experienced opinion. Games can embrace designs that obviate the use of cheats, but this takes a lot of work. It's far easier to create a zero-sum multiplayer experience instead.
In my opinion, the current state is entirely reasonable. Most new games have Denuvo DRM for the first 6 months and then it officially gets removed, no crack needed. So if you feel strongly about DRM, you can still legally enjoy the same game, only a bit later. And as a publisher/developer, promising those 6 months of DRM is enough to make it massively easier to get investors on board.
Should be standard, not just promises. What if denuvo disappears from existence? Will i be able to start game 10 years later? I think i still have some games in my library that still have denuvo, despite being several years old.
If a game that costs too much and is bad can't be cracked without a lot of effort (Empress) because it has denuvo, I will not buy it.
It doesn't matter if a game has denuvo, if the game is bad and overpriced I won't pay money for it.
In fact, because of piracy, I spent more on games than I would have without.
That means the people who are trying to make a quick buck and turn shit into gold will still not succeed.
When I don't have money I won't buy games regardless.
When I do, I do buy games but I try the pirate version first if something interests me.
In most cases it turns out I was baited by whatever and the game is only interesting for that evening, or I can tell in the first few minutes that it's not for me.
I always have buyer's remorse.
It's really rare that I don't regret a purchase.
With Stream or Epic only having a 2 hour refund window, it's simply not enough.
Piracy is there for a good reason.
40 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 94.3 ms ] threadSorry to be so flippant and appear as a devils advocate for DRM, but as far as I'm aware Denuvo runs with the game. Unlike ie Punkbuster, which is constantly running with way too high permissions.
I'm really tired of the trend of people declaring whatever policy they want enacted as being "a human right". Yes, having control over the devices you own is something we should push for, but it's nowhere important to be called a human right.
computing became inalienable from human rights when we as a society started asking everyone to conduct mandatory business using them.
paying your bills, gaining access to places, applying for welfare systems, creating doctors appointments, the list goes on -- the things that can be done alternatively over the phone or in-person dwindles as the years tick by.
If we don't claim that certain computing freedoms should be part-and-parcel of human rights then we must wait for the obvious and apparent abuse-of-system to occur and damage society before remediation -- I think we as a society may just have the wisdom to avoid that damage before it happens, but it requires advocacy.
This is generally true of piracy, but hard to apply to Denuvo:
- in 2022, one Denuvo game was cracked
- you have to wait a long time
- the version cracked might not even be the latest version available at the time of cracking
- you have to deal with a transphobe
Genuinely curious if you also have this same energy towards Steam.
All of this means that when Denuvo's servers get shut down, any game that hasn't been cracked will no longer run.
> Causes excessive HDD/SSD reads/writes which degrades the lifespan of storage drives. > > The origins of this rumor are various user reports from 2014 and "tests" performed using Lords of the Fallen and Dragon Age: Inquisition. This has been denied and debunked multiple times by both Denuvo themselves,[13] publishers/developers, and other users since then. As shown in the technical information section, Denuvo Anti-Tamper performs minimal read and write operations to the drive, and there is no benefit to do additional drive reads or writes in terms of security or performance.[14]
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Denuvo
It's fine to not like DRM. It's another thing to spread FUD and appeal to emotions.
I'm willing to update my credence on that idea. Thank you.
I think my issue with the comment I replied to was the appeal to emotion while saying nothing specific about Denuvo.
I feel the ship has sailed on DRM, and that the solution to people feeling slighted because something they purchased contained DRM without them knowing will be stores listing DRM a game uses, not stopping the use of it.
I think self host server options and modding helps overcome the cheaters with hands on admins and friend groups. I also get you need to pay the staff and am ok seeing good games make money.
I do wish DRM could have a built in expiration though... even 5-10 years to keep older games playable/portable.
matchmaking is fine, but let me keep playing with the people i find back on private servers
simple question : have you encountered an anti-cheat mechanism that works to stop cheaters?
I haven't.
The damage that DRM causes is almost entirely one-sided towards the consumer, aside from the pocketbooks of executives that want to boast about their games licensed anti-cheat mechanisms.
Those that want to cheat may be thrown through another loop, but it doesn't meaningfully stop them -- these people are often technical and interested , anyway. A new challenge for credit on underground forums -- great!
>I haven't.
I have. Quite a number in fact, despite me wishing it didn't. Elden Ring used EAC to huge effect here.
Anti-cheat works to reduce the number and frequency of cheaters, not to eliminate cheating completely. It means the difference between meeting cheaters every single game vs meeting cheaters once every 20 games. One means your game is mostly playable and the other means the game is completely unplayable.
This is reasoning of yours is like: "Why use vaccines at all?" "Why use anti-virus programs at all?" "Why use seat belts at all?"
None of these completely eliminate infection, being hacked, and fatalities in motor accidents. But they vastly reduce the number of them occurring.
I find them to be rare, but I consider the existence of both cheating and anti-cheat software to be a symptom of a bigger problem: shitty games and shitty game mechanics.
If cheats maximize enjoyment for the cheater playing your game, your game sucks and you should focus on retooling the game to deliver that experience without third party tools.
I won't argue your assessment, but I've played and cheated in enough games to have an experienced opinion. Games can embrace designs that obviate the use of cheats, but this takes a lot of work. It's far easier to create a zero-sum multiplayer experience instead.
It doesn't matter if a game has denuvo, if the game is bad and overpriced I won't pay money for it.
In fact, because of piracy, I spent more on games than I would have without.
That means the people who are trying to make a quick buck and turn shit into gold will still not succeed.
When I don't have money I won't buy games regardless. When I do, I do buy games but I try the pirate version first if something interests me.
In most cases it turns out I was baited by whatever and the game is only interesting for that evening, or I can tell in the first few minutes that it's not for me.
I always have buyer's remorse. It's really rare that I don't regret a purchase.
With Stream or Epic only having a 2 hour refund window, it's simply not enough. Piracy is there for a good reason.