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,...
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).
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.
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).
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