Always Online Vs Denuvo

Diabol 2 also has optional multiplayer and trading, it doesn't make it not singleplayer game.
How is D3 different? How is Simcity different?

something like a $100k licensing fee per title. Possibly per implementation so you can't update your program without paying again

I don't get it. Do they think that because they put Denuvo in their game that people who pirate games will just flip a mental switch and go out and pay for it?

How are companies even able to tell if Denuvo is actually bringing in more sales? Considering it actually hurts performance of games infected with it, I just don't bother touching anything with it.

Shareholders don't play video games and don't know how exactly industry operates on our end.
Even most devs don't, ending up making games that nobody plays like stillborn or lawbreakers.

Neither is actually successful and actually contributes less to new purchases
Would you like to hear something that did?
Bundled Downloadable content and vouchers

I guess that's just what to expect from the AAA games market really. Just way too much interference from big publishers and shareholders.

On the other hand, you end up with kickstarters and indie shit with no publisher and absolutely no sort of scheduling or planning. which ends them up with very slow completion / barren fucking games with little to no content. You can see this kind of thing from games like starbound and fucking mighty no#9.

imo just stay away from both the extremes when it comes to purchasing games if you want the least chance of disappointment from the end product.

Always Online is essentially a fuck you to people on shitty connections in terms of playability. That and devs want to be able to sell to as many people as possible, this includes places with shitty internet.

its been a while since I've seen a thread this retarded

...

Denuvo is fire and forget. You have to keep servers up for years with a legacy title which will end up more expensive in the long term than Denuvo.

...

Both are terrible and anticonsumer., also have you even heard of private servers.

Even worse, there's not a single relevant denuvo game but they get cracked anyway.

I wrote this trying to imagine the worst software dystopia possible but honestly it sounds kinda cool now that I think about it.

Until it happens.

because it makes fags like you butthurt

Get rid of both and never give money to any company that ever used any of it.

It worked for Diablo 3 :^)

Its the suits who don't get it that are the ones in charge. They see any way to stop piracy as a good thing and will see the 100K as a worthy investment as no piracy means hundreds of thousands of extra sales. They still don't realize that people that will pirate are either a sale that will never happen in the first place or a fence sitter who wants to pirate as a demo. By denying the latter they also lose a sale.

Because people like these exist.

Thank you, Cpt. Obvious

It's really that simple. Normalfags don't like always online and normalfags don't care about denuvo.

Because "always online" bullshit cuts into sales way harder than any other DRM.
Investors insist on using DRM, which always drops sales, which lowers the return on investment. Game publishers are just barely competent enough to realize that always online hurts them the most, so they instead stab themselves with smaller knives like Denuvo.

I don't see that habbening unless new AAA games are exclusively browser-tier or fibre infrastructure in the west miraculously improves to nip standards by that time and rewriteable SSDs/HDDs require a government license/permit to legally own and purchase, with regular inspections to ensure you have nothing to hide :^).

Wow I just got a fantastic idea- instead of being massive kikes literally they could just use no DRM and watch people actually buy their game after trying the demo version which totally gets created.

Sounds like there's a huge disparity in the market. Why doesn't anyone make a better DRM that's less expensive for creators and less taxing on users' machines? This duopoly of denuvo/always online seems like it's begging for competition.

It's a bitcoin miner. It just updates whatever pre-packaged blockchains whenever it finally does detect the ability to phone home.

Shouldn't that be a scarejew?

denuvo is pretty good at saving me money at least

It should be, but Seth Macfarlane already made the joke.

Be sure to tell those fragfaces to slot off.

What happened to good ole Cd-keys you put in during your installation. I mean it worked, didn't harm the game, you didn't have to have access to internet all the time and people bought tons of games even though you could easily get a key-generator.

They ultimately only served to block pirates interested in the multiplayer aspects of a game, since most MP games that used cd keys block duplicates from simultaneous play

That makes more sense to me tbh, kikes are screwing people over illegally. If someone found proof imagine the delicious lawsuits.

They're not tied to accounts which means they could be resold. Big no-no for publishers.

Vs.
TIME TO KEEP SUPPORT UP

Vs.
TIME TO KEEP SUPPORT UP

Denuvo has the suits convinced that it works without the running costs of an always-online scheme, thus it continues to be used for games.
The only real way to make denuvo fuck off is to shill the shit out of every crack, even if it's for a game that's shit anyway like ME:A.

Anti-piracy software like Denuvo will always fail and everyone loses, including the publisher. Most people who are catching on see that publishers selling multiplatform games see the PC as guaranteed losses. So they put Denuvo on games thinking it will save them money by preventing "losses" because they believe a pirated copy means a loss. But in reality this causes less people to buy the game. And each year there's a report further disproving the myth that downloaded copies means a lost sale.

As far as Denuvo goes, this is how it will go:

The main fallacy publishers have is that they think Denuvo secures sales from would-be pirates; they believe that these would-be pirates buy because the pirated option is not available. Thus the main problem is that anti-piracy groups are feeding them false information. The real culprit here is not so much the publisher being unreasonable but the anti-piracy groups being so false and misrepresenting the piracy issue.

Suits are so fucking out of touch that they don't realize what consumers want. Instead of taking their heads out of their asses, they'd rather listen to some marketing hacks with clear agendas obfuscating the truth during one of those fancy investor meetings that serve free fancy food and has an open bar. In the end it's a net loss for everyone but the kikes who peddle bullshit for money and create jobs that are downright destructive to the fabric of society. A product without DRM would generate more money than one with it, it's been proven many times over different media. Yet, the suits will keep listening to the frauds they hire to lie to them.

They should just stop putting games on Windows. Put games on video game machines only like they used to do. Windows was never made for video games. Super Mario Bros. was never released on Windows and it sold just fine. Then you won't have people complaining about DRM and if they want your game they'll just get a video game machine and buy the game.

Always online is DRM. Denuvo is a method to prevent reverse engineering.

DRM is only useful so long as crackers cannot disassemble the program and remove the check, or patch it to always return true regardless if the product is properly licensed or not.

If you just have an always online DRM, it would be relatively easy (although possibly tedious) to patch it out. Anti reverse engineering techniques are used to make the program more difficult to patch, and Denuvo is simply an implementation of one of the best anti-RE techniques that is practical.

So DRM protects the copyright, and Denuvo protects the DRM.