This is concerning and upsetting. The DRM doesn't just break SD support (despite being verified), it prevents the use of mods. This is a game with no PvP of any kind, where most mods are either skins or gameplay/QoL improvements. MHW for example has a mod that adds New Game+.
Also, I already own the game, so it's not like I can choose to not buy it.
Only if the publisher allows it and specifically creates rollback point. The days where you, the customer, decided whether to apply a patch, install original version or rollback are long over.
I bet breaking a verified game on Steam Deck isn't even covered by basic consumer protection.
Steam has a hidden debug console that allows users to rollback any game to any previous release via the `download_depot` command. It's not remotely as user friendly as when a publisher adds an old version of a game as a beta branch that can be easily switched to in the UI, but as far as I know there's no way to prevent its use.
I haven't tried it myself, but when I was considering trying Spelunky 2 co-op I ran into this thread which suggests which version of the game works best in co-op and how to make Steam download it https://steamcommunity.com/app/418530/discussions/3/38016519...
I assume you could look up the manifests in steamdb and manually rollback in any game? Monster Hunter Rise at least shows what I think are past versions https://steamdb.info/depot/1446781/manifests/
That said, presumably the older version is covered by the older DRM which may cease to work.
Why is the default always pirating and not just skipping? It's not as if there aren't more games available out there than there is time to play them. Reward the developers/publishers who aren't being asses, and we might just get more of 'em.
EDIT: When writing this, I focused too much on piracy and not enough on "you've already bought this." My bad.
The real problem here is that this was added a ling while after launch. At that point, "don't buy it" is like telling someone that they should have invested in apple in 2006 if they wanted a good retirement.
The product changes under you, and the only way to keep it working is piracy. Not ideal.
Yeah, I kinda forgot about that aspect. If you bought it and it changed out from under you (especially when it drops an entire platform), I can see piracy being acceptable.
In the case, the OP already paid for it and can't get a refund, so the thing they paid for is being stolen from them. Meanwhile, some helpful people on the Internet will--for free--give them the original that they paid for.
That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? The publisher decided to specifically ensure that they couldn't be a customer by specifically going out of their way to make it be incompatible with their hardware/OS. So the choices are skipping, or to receive a free, working copy from someone else, so they aren't using any of the publishers resources or affecting them in any way. Why is option 2 morally bad in any way?
I think you're right in one aspect, if the product is changed out from under us when it's been purchased, finding a working copy is acceptable.
> That said, why judge if they didn't buy it?
Because my paycheck (I'm a software dev), and the paychecks of millions of other workers, depends on people paying for such products. Pirating smacks of entitlement; it says that everyone is entitled to a product whether they pay for it or not. There's plenty of arguments that it doesn't really impact developers/actors/etc - I've seen most of them on HN - and they're just wrong. Those arguments are just crutches to help pirates believe they are behaving morally.
So why is option 2 morally bad? The truth is that piracy does impact developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth. It disproportionately impacts those who work in the margins, who aren't EA or Universal or Disney. And the truth is that nobody is entitled to a product, even if that product is an IP and not a physical good, created by another person.
If you can't buy a working product, then the counterfactual to piracy is that you are not a customer and do something else. You yourself suggested they do something else, not that they do something like go buy a windows computer to run it. Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? How does that choice affect developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth? None of them are getting paid in either situation.
Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party instead of going on a bike ride or playing with your cat? And why aren't you "entitled" to have someone willingly share something with you, given that it has no moral consequences to any other party? In my moral framework, you have a right by default to do anything that has no effect on others. I don't see how you could justify otherwise.
> Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it?
With respect, this is a logical impossibility since there is no way to prove that nobody who pirated would have purchased that same product if a piracy was not an option. Accordingly, there must be at least some harm to others.
Beyond this logical problem, there have been published studies done by "Danaher et al", "Aguiar and Martens" and others which show that purchases do increase when piracy is not an option. And no, these studies do not just rely on "every pirated copy is a lost sale", they look at specific data about how sales of music and movies are affected by the availability of piracy.
> Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party
I covered that: my ability to survive (i.e. paycheck) depends on people paying for the product I build. Heck, if we step back and look at the macro scale, a good 40% of the US GDP depends on people purchasing things which can potentially be pirated (goods which rely on IP or copyright protections).
I'm not making a claim that no one who pirates would have purchased. I'm addressing the reasoning behind "if you're not going to buy it, you should abstain". In the case that you've already decided that you will not buy something (e.g. because the version that's for sale will not work, or requires some unacceptable rootkit to run), then why still abstain? It feels to me like that's just appealing to some self-congratulatory puritan ethic. Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it? Literally no one is affected by your abstention. Sitting in a quiet room isn't going to put food on the tables of artists.
> In the case that you've already decided that you will not buy something
How much of that decision is driven by the ready availability of a pirated version of the product? If the answer is "not at all", then why pirate it, since the ability to use the product didn't matter in the first place?
> Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it?
Particularly when it comes to entertainment, nobody is born with an inherit right to someone else's labor. Copyright is just the legal manifestation of this as applied to non-physical products.
Even if nobody is "harmed" (I still consider this specious), nobody is entitled to a developer's game, an actor's movie, a writer's book. What they are entitled to is accessing those in ways the actor/developer/writer have approved. And if they don't have an approved method for someone, well, that's just lost revenue for them; it's not a pass to obtain the product by any means available.
As an aside, "go stare at the clouds" is just shy of reductio ad absurdum, since as I pointed out originally there are more games (not to mention other forms of entertainment) out there than there is time to play them. Much simpler to pick up one of those instead.
> If the answer is "not at all", then why pirate it, since the ability to use the product didn't matter in the first place?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The non-pirated version frequently doesn't work for various groups of people. This whole thread is an example of that; the "legitimate" version of some game now refuses to run on Linux (they may fix this game, but others are permanently intentionally broken, and e.g. VOD streamers do similar things with their 4k streams, so it's the general principle that's interesting). Typically, this is an artificial limitation, and pirated versions work just fine or better. Regardless of the existence of the version that does work, you're not going to buy something that doesn't. Then, having already decided that, you have a separate question of whether to receive a thing that does work as a gift from someone else.
> nobody is entitled to a developer's game, an actor's movie, a writer's book
Sure, but if someone is willing to share it with you, then I'm still not seeing a reason why you wouldn't be "entitled" to accept it. I'm not seeing where the moral necessity for the author's approval comes in; they obviously didn't want anything to do with you, so they're not in the picture.
What entitles the author to be upset when someone they didn't want as a customer anyway gets a copy of their work? Where does the author get the right to say that no one else can give it to them? Fundamentally, I don't see a natural right to claim "I came up with that; everyone else needs to ask my permission to use it". We can create artificial rights to design economic incentives, but if someone doesn't even want your money, then why care about the artificial right?
> as I pointed out originally there are more games (not to mention other forms of entertainment) out there than there is time to play them
Sure, but art isn't fungible, and there are social aspects. Maybe someone isn't interested in Call of Duty 15, or any video game really, but all of their friends are talking about Monster Hunter Rise, so they want to be part of that. They can't buy it since the publisher decided to exclude them as a customer. I still see no reason in such a case why it would be immoral for someone to give them a copy that's been modified to work.
They could go do something else, but why is it the case that they ought to do something else if it makes no difference to anybody but them? Doesn't that seem controlling?
This is about a change that was made to the game after it's release, so presumably OP already paid for it. They are simply taking back the thing they already paid for. If Capcom doesn't like that, then maybe they shouldn't be pulling stupid pointless shit like this.
I swear, it's like some giant corporations actively detest their customers.
This after not fixing the save corrupting bug in Sunbreak expansion basically since it launched doesn't look good... I love the series to bits, but I'll think twice about getting the sequel
People in the fighting game community (FGC) have been suggesting that Capcom's recent DRM anti-mod changes to some games have been some sort of response to the "incident" where some streamer forgot to remove his 100% Naked Chun-Li Street Fighter 6 skin before he started streaming a tournament. Other people in the FGC say it's not the case, but it's an interesting point to mention.
Capcom have a history of doing dumb stuff with DRM. They also changed the DRM system with the Iceborne expansion for Monster Hunter World, which created all sorts of issues, partly due to lazy CRC implementation. It lead to a whole cat and mouse situation of fixing their crap: https://old.reddit.com/r/MonsterHunterWorld/comments/ezpc49/....
And then there was Resident Evil 8 (Village), which performed checks every time you killed a monster, leading to horrible stutter that ended up being worse than the pirated version that ran better and forced the devs to get their stuff together: https://www.ign.com/articles/resident-evil-8-drm-issues-unof....
They also issued free upgrades to Resident Evil 2, 3, and 7, but some of those upgrades had some performance regressions iirc, but the intentions were benign in this case.
All this to say that Capcom have done dumb DRM stuff for a while, but this particular case has had Capcom retroactively add DRM to older games across franchises, which, while new, also looks like the same old antics but applied more broadly. Or, in HN speak: incompetence at scale.
This idea has spread outside of the FGC at this point. I see other places mentioning it as well. I also think you were able to mod SFV to be able to use the paid costumes (or whatever you want as evidenced by the Chun-Li scandal in 6) without actually buying them. Different engines, but I'm sure Capcom didn't like it.
Another point people bring up is that Capcom has been adding micro-transactions post-launch to some of the new Resident Evil remake titles, that effectively power you up to some degree... In the same way that a mod (or cheat engine or whatever you want to call it) could do for free.
I’m very interested how they handle it. IMO, previous, somewhat more PC oriented release (World) showed Capcom how fertile PC gaming is. Rise working great on Steam Deck was a one up. I talked with friends about doing a Steam Deck party just couple weeks ago.
This seems… counterintuitive. But companies make mistakes so in the end it’s all about how they work this out.
Ignoring both performance and Steam Deck compatibility doesn’t bode well for the next iteration.
I wish that Capcom had to refund every single user who ever played this on Linux. It shouldn't be legal to stop people from using things that they've previously bought from you.
I seriously doubt you can ban both of them; a company might be able to pick how they address grievances, but it seems unlikely that you can just ToS your way to complete legal immunity like that.
There have at least been attempts via creative restrictions on already-mandatory arbitration, notably 23andMe after their breach[1] updated their TOS to require a mandatory conference with the company before filing arbitration[2], seemingly as a way to prevent mass arbitration (since they could claim to only have enough staff to handle a trickle of such conferences).
According to [1] refunds are basically guaranteed if within 14 days of purchase and less than 2 hours of play time, and anything outside that is "we'll take a look at it"
So if you've played for more than 2 hours, you're at Valve's mercy. But if a lot of people complain, they might take mercy on you.
Definitely doesn't work on everything. I had to remove a bundle from my account that had broken depots where the executable was literally missing. It was country and sale (winter 2011) specific, so I'd imagine not a lot of people complained.
Well, my argument is more like "You played it on a platform they didn't support, and now they published a version that broke however you got it to work in the first place".
For example, if you managed to run the game on a platform not officially supported by the developers/publishers, does that now mean they're not allowed to do any changes to the game that could jeopardize that?
They can make whatever changes they want to the new version as long as I can keep playing the old version. (I'd be okay only being able to play multiplayer with other people also on the old version, but not with being unable to play multiplayer at all.)
To my knowledge this game was never advertised as a game to play on the Steam Deck officially.
If you choose to play a game on an unsupported platform, that is your problem and not theirs.
In reality it's Valve's problem since they have pushed Linux on gamers without proper education that it is not in fact an official platform for any of these games and could break at any time.
Now if they advertised this game as playable on Steam Deck, sure! But most games don't and for good reason.
I agree on the DRM side, this is more based on the situation of Linux gaming. Other games have broken with a simple update that had nothing to do with DRM.
I find it absurd to expect support on an unsupported platform. I put that particular blame on Valve. But for some reason we are perfectly fine with Valve not properly educating their customers (which for the record I am one, I love my Steam Deck but I also understand what's going on and the realities of gaming on Linux) and putting the blame on developers instead.
The game is marked as Deck Verified by Valve [1], which means someone at Valve will have tested it. More about how a game is marked as Deck Verified [2]
I could have sworn that deck verified was fully automated and I don't see clarification either way there, but regardless.
Your point emphasizes that this is Valve's problem and not the publishers. Valve is pushing an unsupported platform for games by saying it's "verified" when an update could easily break that (as evidence here). A developer is not likely to target an unsupported platform for testing.
Especially given:
"If you take no action, after approximately a week your review results will automatically be published and show up on your game detail page".
So that checkbox being on the Store page is not confirmation from the developer for supporting the platform.
Capcom have acknowledged that they will provide a hotfix in the near future to fix the issue [1]. Anecdotally, the newest Proton Experimental fixes the problem for me on my Steam Deck.
In the Netherlands at least you can reasonably assume it is compatible with your device when it says "Deck Verified" and can get either a fix or a refund within a reasonable amount of time (say, 2 weeks) from the place of purchase, I imagine similar countries have similar laws. So from such countries a letter or two should do the trick, but of course only a small percent of people who bothered reading the law know that and they probably don't teach law in middle school.
So they won't have an issue refunding the millions of steam deck and Linux copies who've only ever played it on linux, since it wasn't supported originally.
That is Valve 's problem by emulating Windows games, instead of fostering a native GNU/Linux games ecosystem, while Android/Linux is doing quite alright.
I think if you violate the right of first sale retroactively, the customer should be able to demand a full refund, the item reverts to inventory, and the company has to pay taxes on it.
It also breaks "Resident Evil 5", a game I have owned for many years but was never able to play because of a broken "Games for Windows Live" DRM that was only recently removed.
I literally bought it to play on my Steam Deck as it's less graphically intensive than Monster Hunter World (which I read was a bit laggy on the Deck). If this doesn't get fixed, I am going to ask for a refund.
I’ve been playing MHWorld on my steam deck OLED (low settings) at a consistently smooth 60fps. The only hiccup is the new map introduced in the Iceborne DLC (hoarfrost reach, the area covered in snow) hovers around 55-57.
Side note, I’m afraid they’re going to bork MHWorld in an update too. Which would be hugely disappointing as I’ve easily put 100 hours into the game on deck alone.
Just to clarify, Capcom is not intentionally breaking Linux/proton/steam deck compatibility.
They've been updating older games with new anti cheat for a couple weeks and a few of them have been broken on Linux but it is just a lack of testing or incompetence, not maliciousness towards Linux gaming.
Honestly, that's worse. If it were deliberate there would be some feet somewhere that could be held to the fire. In the case of incompetence, everyone just shrugs their shoulders and deals with it.
They've been updating single player games with new DRM. Maybe it's not malice towards Linux users specifically, but I'd call it malice towards their customer base.
Anti-cheat serves a useful purpose for customers. Cheating is a real problem that can destroy online games and ruin fun for a game's customers. While anti-cheat can introduce its own problems, it does have real benefits for users.
DRM has no benefit for legitimate users, it can only harm them.
I have 70 hours in this game (plus Sunbreak) on Deck, disappointed they broke it but it's really nothing new, as long as they fix it within a reasonable timeframe I am happy... plenty of other games for the meantime.
Especially if Dragons Dogma 2 is getting this same DRM, I would rather they break/fix existing titles and apply that work to DD2, versus launch it with zero support and I wind up unable to play! It's a process.
>We're aware of an issue that is currently preventing Monster Hunter Rise from running on Steam Deck after updating to Ver.16.0.2.0. A hotfix for this issue is planned for release in the very near future. Please stay tuned, and thank you for your patience and understanding
79 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadAlso, I already own the game, so it's not like I can choose to not buy it.
I bet breaking a verified game on Steam Deck isn't even covered by basic consumer protection.
I assume you could look up the manifests in steamdb and manually rollback in any game? Monster Hunter Rise at least shows what I think are past versions https://steamdb.info/depot/1446781/manifests/
That said, presumably the older version is covered by the older DRM which may cease to work.
Why is the default always pirating and not just skipping? It's not as if there aren't more games available out there than there is time to play them. Reward the developers/publishers who aren't being asses, and we might just get more of 'em.
EDIT: When writing this, I focused too much on piracy and not enough on "you've already bought this." My bad.
The product changes under you, and the only way to keep it working is piracy. Not ideal.
That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? The publisher decided to specifically ensure that they couldn't be a customer by specifically going out of their way to make it be incompatible with their hardware/OS. So the choices are skipping, or to receive a free, working copy from someone else, so they aren't using any of the publishers resources or affecting them in any way. Why is option 2 morally bad in any way?
> That said, why judge if they didn't buy it?
Because my paycheck (I'm a software dev), and the paychecks of millions of other workers, depends on people paying for such products. Pirating smacks of entitlement; it says that everyone is entitled to a product whether they pay for it or not. There's plenty of arguments that it doesn't really impact developers/actors/etc - I've seen most of them on HN - and they're just wrong. Those arguments are just crutches to help pirates believe they are behaving morally.
So why is option 2 morally bad? The truth is that piracy does impact developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth. It disproportionately impacts those who work in the margins, who aren't EA or Universal or Disney. And the truth is that nobody is entitled to a product, even if that product is an IP and not a physical good, created by another person.
Anyways, that's my rant.
Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party instead of going on a bike ride or playing with your cat? And why aren't you "entitled" to have someone willingly share something with you, given that it has no moral consequences to any other party? In my moral framework, you have a right by default to do anything that has no effect on others. I don't see how you could justify otherwise.
With respect, this is a logical impossibility since there is no way to prove that nobody who pirated would have purchased that same product if a piracy was not an option. Accordingly, there must be at least some harm to others.
Beyond this logical problem, there have been published studies done by "Danaher et al", "Aguiar and Martens" and others which show that purchases do increase when piracy is not an option. And no, these studies do not just rely on "every pirated copy is a lost sale", they look at specific data about how sales of music and movies are affected by the availability of piracy.
> Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party
I covered that: my ability to survive (i.e. paycheck) depends on people paying for the product I build. Heck, if we step back and look at the macro scale, a good 40% of the US GDP depends on people purchasing things which can potentially be pirated (goods which rely on IP or copyright protections).
How much of that decision is driven by the ready availability of a pirated version of the product? If the answer is "not at all", then why pirate it, since the ability to use the product didn't matter in the first place?
> Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it?
Particularly when it comes to entertainment, nobody is born with an inherit right to someone else's labor. Copyright is just the legal manifestation of this as applied to non-physical products.
Even if nobody is "harmed" (I still consider this specious), nobody is entitled to a developer's game, an actor's movie, a writer's book. What they are entitled to is accessing those in ways the actor/developer/writer have approved. And if they don't have an approved method for someone, well, that's just lost revenue for them; it's not a pass to obtain the product by any means available.
As an aside, "go stare at the clouds" is just shy of reductio ad absurdum, since as I pointed out originally there are more games (not to mention other forms of entertainment) out there than there is time to play them. Much simpler to pick up one of those instead.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The non-pirated version frequently doesn't work for various groups of people. This whole thread is an example of that; the "legitimate" version of some game now refuses to run on Linux (they may fix this game, but others are permanently intentionally broken, and e.g. VOD streamers do similar things with their 4k streams, so it's the general principle that's interesting). Typically, this is an artificial limitation, and pirated versions work just fine or better. Regardless of the existence of the version that does work, you're not going to buy something that doesn't. Then, having already decided that, you have a separate question of whether to receive a thing that does work as a gift from someone else.
> nobody is entitled to a developer's game, an actor's movie, a writer's book
Sure, but if someone is willing to share it with you, then I'm still not seeing a reason why you wouldn't be "entitled" to accept it. I'm not seeing where the moral necessity for the author's approval comes in; they obviously didn't want anything to do with you, so they're not in the picture.
What entitles the author to be upset when someone they didn't want as a customer anyway gets a copy of their work? Where does the author get the right to say that no one else can give it to them? Fundamentally, I don't see a natural right to claim "I came up with that; everyone else needs to ask my permission to use it". We can create artificial rights to design economic incentives, but if someone doesn't even want your money, then why care about the artificial right?
> as I pointed out originally there are more games (not to mention other forms of entertainment) out there than there is time to play them
Sure, but art isn't fungible, and there are social aspects. Maybe someone isn't interested in Call of Duty 15, or any video game really, but all of their friends are talking about Monster Hunter Rise, so they want to be part of that. They can't buy it since the publisher decided to exclude them as a customer. I still see no reason in such a case why it would be immoral for someone to give them a copy that's been modified to work.
They could go do something else, but why is it the case that they ought to do something else if it makes no difference to anybody but them? Doesn't that seem controlling?
I swear, it's like some giant corporations actively detest their customers.
The latest creation updates with skyrim broke kb+m. Steam needs the never update option again.
And then there was Resident Evil 8 (Village), which performed checks every time you killed a monster, leading to horrible stutter that ended up being worse than the pirated version that ran better and forced the devs to get their stuff together: https://www.ign.com/articles/resident-evil-8-drm-issues-unof....
They also issued free upgrades to Resident Evil 2, 3, and 7, but some of those upgrades had some performance regressions iirc, but the intentions were benign in this case.
All this to say that Capcom have done dumb DRM stuff for a while, but this particular case has had Capcom retroactively add DRM to older games across franchises, which, while new, also looks like the same old antics but applied more broadly. Or, in HN speak: incompetence at scale.
Another point people bring up is that Capcom has been adding micro-transactions post-launch to some of the new Resident Evil remake titles, that effectively power you up to some degree... In the same way that a mod (or cheat engine or whatever you want to call it) could do for free.
This seems… counterintuitive. But companies make mistakes so in the end it’s all about how they work this out.
Ignoring both performance and Steam Deck compatibility doesn’t bode well for the next iteration.
- "From reports I've seen it affects Linux desktop too, not just Steam Deck."
He's a bunch of such reports:
https://www.protondb.com/app/1446780
Edit: Looked it up and to Capcom's credit, there's no arbitration requirement in the EULA for MH Rise on Steam.
1. https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/04/23andme-confirms-hackers-s...
2. https://www.23andme.com/legal/terms-of-service/#dispute-reso...
So if you've played for more than 2 hours, you're at Valve's mercy. But if a lot of people complain, they might take mercy on you.
[1] https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/5FDE-BA65-ACCE-A4...
For example, if you managed to run the game on a platform not officially supported by the developers/publishers, does that now mean they're not allowed to do any changes to the game that could jeopardize that?
If you choose to play a game on an unsupported platform, that is your problem and not theirs.
In reality it's Valve's problem since they have pushed Linux on gamers without proper education that it is not in fact an official platform for any of these games and could break at any time.
Now if they advertised this game as playable on Steam Deck, sure! But most games don't and for good reason.
They also do acknowledge it being broken and their looking into it so it wasn't totally intentional.
Still shitty and completely unnecessary. Really Rise is old enough at this point that DRM should be removed, not added.
I find it absurd to expect support on an unsupported platform. I put that particular blame on Valve. But for some reason we are perfectly fine with Valve not properly educating their customers (which for the record I am one, I love my Steam Deck but I also understand what's going on and the realities of gaming on Linux) and putting the blame on developers instead.
I do find it interesting that Twitter said it, but their website makes no mention of it: https://www.monsterhunter.com/rise-xwp/en-us/
[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1446780/MONSTER_HUNTER_RI... [2] https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/steamdeck/compat
Your point emphasizes that this is Valve's problem and not the publishers. Valve is pushing an unsupported platform for games by saying it's "verified" when an update could easily break that (as evidence here). A developer is not likely to target an unsupported platform for testing.
Especially given:
"If you take no action, after approximately a week your review results will automatically be published and show up on your game detail page".
So that checkbox being on the Store page is not confirmation from the developer for supporting the platform.
[1] https://x.com/monsterhunter/status/1749390124385771852?s=20
Side note, I’m afraid they’re going to bork MHWorld in an update too. Which would be hugely disappointing as I’ve easily put 100 hours into the game on deck alone.
They've been updating older games with new anti cheat for a couple weeks and a few of them have been broken on Linux but it is just a lack of testing or incompetence, not maliciousness towards Linux gaming.
https://www.monsterhunter.com/rise/us/multiplayer/
Anti-cheat, or DRM? They're not the same thing.
DRM has no benefit for legitimate users, it can only harm them.
Not in single‐player games it doesn’t.
I'd say that anti-cheat is effectively a subset of DRM, as it prevents unauthorized changes to the binary, typically.
Especially if Dragons Dogma 2 is getting this same DRM, I would rather they break/fix existing titles and apply that work to DD2, versus launch it with zero support and I wind up unable to play! It's a process.
https://twitter.com/monsterhunter/status/1749390124385771852
https://enigmaprotector.com/