Capcom's securities report for the fiscal year ended March 31 (via Gamebiz) shows that Steam accounted for 31% of the company's revenue. Capcom's revenue from the platform,...
While it’s great that they’re doing well on the only truly open gaming platform, it’s a shame that they’re being rewarded for infecting their games with anti-consumer malware. Any company that uses Denuvo lacks moral fibre and deserves to fail.
What do you mean? Pretty much every game on Steam is “third party.” They do mention certain things on the store though, like kernel level anti-cheat or needing a third party account, though I don’t know how many people check that.
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 they have every ethical right. Performance impact is beside the point. DRM is theft and Denuvo is the worst offender out there.
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. Preventing consumers from using or transferring the things they have purchased however they choose is theft. Defending or excusing theft is as unethical as theft itself.
Thank goodness you called video games out as being a luxury so everyone doesn’t notice you have no real argument for why it’s OK for DRM to exist. You almost looked really silly.
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).
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.
While it’s great that they’re doing well on the only truly open gaming platform, it’s a shame that they’re being rewarded for infecting their games with anti-consumer malware. Any company that uses Denuvo lacks moral fibre and deserves to fail.
Isn’t it only 3rd party games with that and steam warns you about it though?
What do you mean? Pretty much every game on Steam is “third party.” They do mention certain things on the store though, like kernel level anti-cheat or needing a third party account, though I don’t know how many people check that.
deleted by creator
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 they have every ethical right. Performance impact is beside the point. DRM is theft and Denuvo is the worst offender out there.
deleted by creator
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. Preventing consumers from using or transferring the things they have purchased however they choose is theft. Defending or excusing theft is as unethical as theft itself.
deleted by creator
Thank goodness you called video games out as being a luxury so everyone doesn’t notice you have no real argument for why it’s OK for DRM to exist. You almost looked really silly.
Yeah I noticed I don’t really care.
“It’s okay for corporations to steal from consumers a little bit. As a treat.”
deleted by creator
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).
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.