Last week, we informed you about the removal of the Denuvo anti-tamper tech from DOOM. While Bethesda and id Software did not reveal the reasons why this anti-piracy tech was removed, Denuvo broke its silence and told Kotaku that its anti-tamper tech was removed because it had “accomplished its purpose by keeping the game safe from piracy during the initial sales window.”
As Denuvo’s Robert Hernandez told Kotaku:
“The simple reason why Denuvo Anti Tamper was removed from Doom was because it had accomplished its purpose by keeping the game safe from piracy during the initial sales window. The protection on Doom held up for nearly four months, which is an impressive accomplishment for such a high-profile game.”
Hernandez also claimed that the rumours about the ‘special’ refunds were incorrect. As Hernandez said, Denuvo doesn’t have any deals in place that offer refunds if a game is cracked within a specific time frame.
“We can’t comment on our deals with specific customers, but we do not have any deals in place that offer refunds if a game is cracked within a specific time frame. However, each publisher is of course free to remove our anti tamper tech from their title once they feel the protection has achieved its purpose in protecting the initial sales window, or if they have other reasons for doing so, such as selling the title on DRM-free platforms.”
And there you have it everyone, straight from the horse’s mouth. Publishers can remove the Denuvo anti-tamper tech whenever they want to!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
damage control mode from Denuvo team. xD
nah – they are right
The statement may be accurate, but it is also an attempt at damage control.
P.S. “And there you have it everyone, straight from the horse’s mouth. Publishers can remove the Denuvo anti-tamper tech whenever they want to!”
Lol’d ^^
Why would aynone remove the drm from a game? It is clear they doing it because it costs them to keep it on.
Good point, which argues strongly in favour of there being a subscription cost attached to Denuvo after all.
Denuvo isn’t even a DRM.
Exactly this.
I don’t know if it’s Denuvo’s fault but DOOM crashed to desktop like every 10 minutes for me until Vulkan came along. After that the game ran fine.
wouldnt think so, you still had it running while using vulkan
I think’s been established that Denuovo doesn’t cause any performance problems or crashes. There was the odd game that had problems early on, but there’s also games like Just Cause 3 and Phantom Pain for example that have it and run quite well.
I don’t think it’s possible to confirm or deny the matter currently cause it’s a case by case scenario (different Denuvo “versions”, different additional softwares) and even same cases might show different results on different systems.
Yes, but some of the cases in which Denuovo was pointed as a potential cause of bad performance were confirmed to be just really bad ports (Arkham Knight being ported by a 5 men team, for example)
JC3 was and still is terrible, not saying it’s because of denuvo but that’s a terrible example for running quite well. also nothing established around that matter.
JC3 had a wonky launch in all platforms, but it runs quite well now. I saw it running solid 1080p/60fps on a friend’s GTX970 machine — explosions and all. It’s also quite stable in my GTX1080, though I didn’t play it long.
Just the loading times are still a bit unreasonable (not as long as it was launch day on the consoles, though).
Well it runs terrible even today, nothing actually fixed, still sufers from Memory Leak issues. i don’t own the game but my friend does, he has a 1070 and after 1 hour it’s unplayable.
I believed that’s patched. I played for hours at my friends house, and around 2 hours by myself (the start of the game) and it held quite well, solid 1080/60.
Even people who own the game on steam aren’t happy about it, so let’s leave it at that. stutters are still there and it’s worst on consoles, dropping to low 5fps time to time, it’s not a terrible port, it’s a terrible game with terrible optimization issues.
Its a terrible port? yes. Terrible optimization? maybe. Terrible game? No, its vastly better than JC2 in almost every aspect.
Not really, Teribble optimization, looks terrible, repetitive gameplay and awful design, better than JC2 won’t make it a good game, not even mediocre.
Still the gameplay is better than jc2, so id say that makes it a good game.
It is not, librating 50 outposts, blowing x many antena is not a good game, this is how they fail simple level design, the same exact mission in different places, ubi formula the game. add terrible optimization to the mix, you got yourself a terrible game.
Don’t get me wrong, sometimes i like terrible games like Dynasty Warriors series, they are still terrible tho.
Jc2 was trash if you ask me, i never liked it, they spend too much time adding collectible trash instead of optimizing it, improving the controls and the missions. The idea of including money and upgradable weapons vehicles was god awful. JC3 is better in every way.
“Just Cause 3” “run quite well.”
Eh?
Other than that, agreed, don’t misunderstand.
Edit: Piggybacking on the conversation below; Yes, a lot of JC3’s issues got patched, but a lot more remain, even today. It’s a case-by-case basis thing, right now, really, & it’s most likely going to remain that way, unfortunately.
I don’t think so. I took a look and all threads talking about performance issues seem to be from the time the game launched.
Maybe people just didn’t play the game recently, because I played it when it went on sale on Steam this last month and I’m telling it’s a good port now, loading times aside.
i’ve tested jc3 on my gtx1080 and r9 290x last summer, i was able to hit +100fps with gtx 1080, 290x however struggled to keep a stable 60fps, for some reason it was a micro stutter festival on my amd card, might be driver
Like I said, it’s a case-by-case basis thing. I’ve seen a lot of recent complaints about people still having problems myself.
Jc3 runs well? lol.
Well, that horse works with security and just lost a very visible client, so he has a pretty good reason to be doing damage control right now.
if it accomplished it’s goal then why remove it?are you hiding something else, lol
*cough subscription fee cough*
maybe rumors about ssd and negative performance are true, who knows
No idea about the SSD stuff anymore, but the sub fee seems ever more likely, honestly. That, & special contracts based on the game in question, which I assumed ever since Indies started using it, really.
I mean, you can’t charge an Indie the same 6-figure+ price you’re charging EA & U-Be-Soft, they just don’t have that kind of money, period.
Boom, there you go, simple as. It was designed and accomplished the goal it had set out to do, secure the first few weeks and few months worth of sales.
And now I have absolute proof of it than I can shove into people’s faces every time they try to claim that “publishers care about the long-term.”
Oh, today is a good day ^^
Unless you are ubisoft, they dont want their game to get pirated EVER, they would rather that the servers of a game that no one bought go down and no one can play it when the nuclear apocalypse happen, than get one single pirate playing the game for free. They will chase away all the legitimate consumers to make sure no one plays their game for free, they will spy you to make sure you are not playing it on a friends system.
The only Ubisoft games I buy are the ones from GOG. Yes, the really old ones. If Ubisoft implodes, I’d hope for the entirety of their catalogue to be made available DRM free on GOG eventually. A man can wish…
The cynic in me says that while Playdead and id made the good decision, they are exceptions and none of the other companies will do the same, regardless of how many bypasses or cracks any group can come up with.
>open notebook
>type “hack all games.exe”
>save as bat file
>double click your new master hack
>every game ever is now hacked
P.S. I am a professional hacker
I completely believe in you.
Get a fan, connect a calculator with a solar panel on it, ta da your summer fan no longer requires electricity. The sun will do al the work for you. Get a plastic bag, fill it with air, put it on and dive in the water, you can now breath underwater.
*cough* INSIDE *cough*
If uncracked games had their denuvo removed then i would believe him but that’s not the case. Also if their deal doesn’t involve 3 month guarantee then why did they feel the need to respond to this rumor? didn’t they “accomplished their goal” already? or are they just confirming that their service is subscription based? cause that’s the only way their logic makes sense rofl.
Or if you are ubisoft, Use steam, uplay, denuvo and always online just to make sure when you finally go bankrupt no one will be able to play your games.
Who ?
Christmas sale here I come!
part3 came out?
It did. That doc is superb. I also recommen? watchin Mick Gordon 2-parter on composing music for Doom on his youtube channel.
I have not even see part 2. Also that beta doom 4 looked pretty good, not doom but id play that.
Looked boring imho, there a bunch of Call of Duty games already.
The real irony is that practices like DRM, DLC and microtransactions wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for the piracy quote-unquote community in the first place.
What.
DRM, sure. DLC & micro-transactions…. yeah, no.
DLC’s took off because of consoles, micro-transactions took off because of F2P games. Both of these practices were introduced to $60 games because of publisher greed, nothing more, nothing less. Neither of them have anything to do with “piracy.”
That might be, but I read somewhere (can’t remember exactly) where a mid-sized publisher claimed that the idea of DLC and microtransactions was to make sure to keep the customer paying over the long term in smaller amounts as opposed to have them pay a lump sum at one go… which they might not do and just pirate the game instead.
I’m inclined to believe that point of view, though I also believe you have a fair point that nowadays necessity has turned into greed to a considerable extent.
and i read somewhere that ea likes day one dlc because it turns 60 day one sales into 70 day one sales.
Did EA say that or are you saying that? I’m betting on the latter.
I don’t know about him, but I’ve been saying it for years. It’s an excellent way to artificially raise the MSRP from $60 without actually causing a sh*tstorm by just directly raising it outright.
Day-1 DLC is the manifestation of greed, but greed wasn’t the sole reason for the origin of DLC in general, if we are to believe the point of view of some publishers.
Oh I’m sure the idea behind DLC was at least at first for them to be an accompaniment piece of sorts to Expansion Packs; perhaps to deliver smaller sets of content at a lower price tag between major Expansions, or some such – especially since DLC’s date to around the time when internet connections started to open up a bit, & people started to download more than just update patches.
However, the moment ZeniMax-Bethesda launched that $5 horse skin DLC, that moment right there is for me exactly when that original concept for DLCs went right out the window in favour of overpriced skins & whatnot, even though $10 skin packs took a few more years to actually become standard, as a result of the massive backslash Bethesda endured courtesy of their f*cking piece of sh*t horse skin.
Yeah paid horse armor is bad. I mean whose idea was it to give a horse some armor anyway? There are kids in Africa who can’t afford armor you know.
Armour? Please. Those Africa kiddies can’t even afford bullets!
;D
Read my comment too.
Myeh.
#Effort.
;P
You are an idiot if you think that. Cuz dead space 3 was not turned into a coop action game with microtransactions and dlc that is infact the ending of the game becuase of “piracy” but because ea is ea…..But do tell me why did watchdogs had like a billion of special preorder editions…must be piracy….also poor uncharted, its not making enough money so they had to make commercials with subway sandwiches to make money, because as naughty dog said, games gotta make money at some point….Sony is paying, they pocket the royalty fees since they are the owners of the platform and the publishers, they basically pay themselves the royalty fees to develop on their own platform….instead of lowering the price of the game, after all it is a exclusive, its purpose is to sell consoles not make money…but they dont, because they like money and ….”at some point games gotta make money” Maybe if they did not spend so much money to make it Hollywood cinematic, nah, its all piracy fault.
And you are an idiot because you talk a lot but have nothing to say. Where was DRM back in the days of Doom and Quake? You’re so short-sighted that you don’t even realize that video games have been around for much longer than what you’re referring to. I’d love to see you prove me wrong when I say that piracy came before DRM. DRM was designed to counter piracy and that’s a fact, no matter how you try to spin your agenda.
“Where was DRM back in the days of Doom and Quake?”
You sure you wanna go that back? Of course you do because right after that we had serials, securom and all that trash.
But since you wanna go that far back. Games back then had bugs that appeared in pirated versions of games. There were various questions that you had to figure out but reading something on the box or manual or even worse use some kind of lens in order to find the answer on a colored paper with a encrypted code. It was crazy. Back then my little idiot, you did not have large corporations, games were distributed by the developers themselves by ORDERING them, also my little idiot do you know what we had back in those days? DEMOS, SHAREWARE, to advertise the game and get you to buy them because they did not pay huge marketing firms. Are you saying that back then there was no piracy and everything was just fine but now piracy is causing such huge problems despite the fact games back then were this obscure thing that few people knew about or could even order them if they did not live in a first world country. The consumer base was small and the marketing and hype were practically non existent and the sales were pathetic by comparison to today’s numbers, so how on earth are you saying that back then they were doing fine with such a limited audience and so few sales and no marketing that they employed such godawful anti piracy techniques but now with all that hype and sales and marketing they dont make any money and this is why they do multi platform, dlcs, micro transactions, shameless sequels etc etc etc
So yeah you are an idiot.
oh and movies and music and software have drm too, you might wanna read up why there are scientists protesting against drm, its a nice read.
“You sure you wanna go that back? Of course you do because right after that we had serials, securom and all that trash.”
— Yes I do. Right after that there was the internet boom, leading to an increase in digital media, leading to an increase in internet piracy, leading to more restrictive licenses. Try me.
“Games back then had bugs that appeared in pirated versions of games. There were various questions that you had to figure out but reading something on the box or manual or even worse use some kind of lens in order to find the answer on a colored paper with a encrypted code. It was crazy.”
— So you’re just admitting those restrictions were in place to thwart piracy.
“Back then my little idiot, you did not have large corporations, games
were distributed by the developers themselves by ORDERING them”
— Lol, no. Please look up the history of digital media publishing before claiming I’m an idiot. I assure you games were not always coded by a bunch of guys in basements.
“also my little idiot do you know what we had back in those days? DEMOS, SHAREWARE”
— So? How does that have anything to do with piracy and DRM? Piracy was present even back then, but not to the extent it is now, my little idiot.
“Are you saying that back then there was no piracy and everything was just fine but now piracy is causing such huge problems”
— Because piracy is much more accessible now. Piracy was present even then, and that proves my point that DRM came after piracy. Especially after piracy got out of hand with more people having access to faster internet.
“despite the fact games back then were this obscure thing that few people knew about or could even order them if they did not live in a first world country”
— Oh please, I’m from India and we had legit video games available even back during the 90s. You’re from Europe so please spare that cr*p about not being in a first-world country.
“The consumer base was small and the marketing and hype were practically non existent and the sales were pathetic by comparison to today’s numbers, so how on earth are you saying that back then they were doing fine with such a limited audience and so few sales and no marketing that they employed such godawful anti piracy techniques”
— Everything was smaller back then, including the corporations themselves. Companies like EA and Activision didn’t become big overnight. The advertising and marketing was smaller because the companies dealing with them were smaller as well. Technology was not as prevalent back then as it is today. Twenty years ago you couldn’t just go to PirateBay and download stuff as easily as you can today.
“So yeah you are an idiot.”
— Mm-kay.
“oh and movies and music and software have drm too, you might wanna read up why there are scientists protesting against drm, its a nice read.”
— I know. I’m against DRM, which is why I’m against piracy. One would not exist if it were not for the other.
“I’m against DRM, which is why I’m against piracy. One would not exist if it were not for the other.”
Debatable. The Media Industry has been whining about “illegal copies” since way before torrenting became mainstream. Remember how radio & TV taping was going to kill “official” sales, for example? It’s always something, just as it’s always been something.
Also, just for the record; if it weren’t for digital pirate downloads, we’d most likely still be buying sh*t exclusively on disc, because Hollywood would most likely still be way too allergic to the idea of digital downloads as a viable market.
Did you know that comic books went digital expressly in order to combat digital download piracy, & as a result of which, we now have digital comic book libraries? Well, of US-based publishing houses, at least. Most of the rest of the world, on the other hand, such as my country, for example, still insists on a physical media-exclusive release, with the exception of a single, Tablet-bound app – no desktop releases, or some such variation of that, unfortunately.
Some of the most internationally popular & famous European comic book series are still either app-bound to tablets &/or smartphones, or just not available digitally at all, period.
Hmm, I’ll probably type out a larger wall of text if you’re interested, but for now let’s just say that music and film piracy don’t exactly work in the same way as video game piracy does. Both music and films have alternate avenues of income such as live shows and theatrical premieres… video game don’t. Once you’ve already played the game, there’s no incentive for you to go out and make a legal purchase other than as an act of goodwill towards the developer. Such things are as ineffective and useless as those lame NFO files on pirated copies telling you purchase the product if you like it as if that somehow is supposed to legitimize anything.
Ah, but here’s two counter-arguments;
– Theatre attendance is in the sh*tter (according to Hollywood, You-Know-What is to blame…. according to me, the ridiculous price tags attached to those movie tickets these days are to blame, but yeah)
– All the money from CD sales doesn’t even go to the Artists anyway; they get a really, seriously, truly, tiny cut of the pie that’s akin to theft, but legal, because that’s just how it is, so artists really only make money off their tours, etc, & even then they get whatever’s left over after everyone else gets paid off.
Yes, you’re right, games only have a single revenue stream by comparison, but at least, even if it’s a publisher-owned company, every purchase you make applies towards them deciding whether or not they’re going to go forward on a sequel, or shut down the studio (Sleeping Dogs didn’t get a sequel, sadly, & its studio was recently shut down by Square Assh*les, for example).
“Once you’ve already played the game, there’s no incentive for you to go out and make a legal purchase other than as an act of goodwill towards the developer.”
True. And?
“Such things are as ineffective and useless”
You believe there’s nobody out there who actually goes back & buys the game later on, at a sale? Or, at least, that there’s no significant portion of people who do? Perhaps, perhaps not.
“Theatre attendance is in the sh*tter”
— But at least it exists. Such isn’t the case for video games. You couldn’t go to a video game premiere even if you wanted to. Look how arcades turned out.
“All the money from CD sales doesn’t even go to the artists, anyway; they
get a really, seriously, truly, tiny cut of the pie that’s akin to
theft”
— I was talking about live shows, not CD sales. Music artists have live shows, games don’t. Hence music artists can soften the blow from lack of sales of their musical content on disc, but games can’t.
“every purchase you make applies towards them deciding whether or not they’re going to go forward on a sequel”
— That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it. Purchases also go towards keeping developers employed. If you stopped buying games entirely, how do you think these developers would continue to draw salaries?
“True, and?”
— And hence you can’t compare music and movies to games. Music and movies have additional benefits due to their alternate revenue streams, games don’t.
“You believe there’s nobody out there who actually goes back & buys
the game later on, at a sale? Or, at least, that there’s no significant
portion of people who do?”
— I don’t believe that no one goes and buys a game after pirating it. Some people indeed turn into legit customers. Some of them even go on to purchase all future games legally as well. But they’re not a significant number from what I’ve seen (at least where I’m from). The remaining portion of these pirates simply pirate because they can. And they’re the problematic ones.
I’d argue arcades have largely died off because gaming is no longer limited to arcades, & they as a result failed to adapt to the changing times. It’s like brick & mortar stores; a lot of them have shut down due to digital distribution, but a lot more persevere because they’re able to &/or have adapted to the changing times. “Raising the prices” didn’t work for the big blockbusters, & it’s not working for cinema’s, so they’re “blaming the pirates” because it’s the easiest thing to do.
Revisiting the “single revenue stream” argument; well, some games, at least, have secondary revenue streams, I’d say. Some have a vibrant, active eSports league (yeah, I know, they’re the exception, not the rule), whereas others have micro-transaction based marketplaces that could quite possibly be generating considerable revenue for them, no? Sure, they’re not quite akin to musical concerts etc. & they most likely don’t bring in anywhere near as much as a Global Musical Tour does, but still.
Yes, to quote you; “Once you’ve already played the game, there’s no incentive for you to go out and make a legal purchase” – but then again, while putting on the market a couple of items that cost $1000 would be controversial even if they were purely cosmetic, even if you only sold 200-300 copies of each of those items, you’ve still just turned a $1 million profit. Yes, it’s a “far out” hypothetical, but its been done before, & it’s arguably a better use of resources than Denuvo’s consumer-afflicting anti-tamper bullsh*t (point of view, I know :P).
“— That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it. Purchases also go towards keeping developers employed. If you stopped buying games entirely, how do you think these developers would continue to draw salaries?”
That was included in my viewpoint. Greenlighting a sequel for publisher-owned studios these days seems to more often than not decree whether or not the studio will remain in business, I’d say. Take the recent closing of the Sleeping Dogs developers, for example. Considering the time between SD’s release & their shutting down, I’d say they were definitely working on something new that most likely wasn’t SD2 (“disappointing sales figures” & all), which fell through, & resulted in them being shut down by their owners.
Sure, Sleeping Dogs was undoubtedly pirated, but even if it wasn’t – like, say, for example, if it were protected by Denuvo, I doubt its sales figures would have been that much better regardless, so the studio shutting down would most likely have been inevitable regardless. I agree, we can’t say for sure either way, but that’s also part of my point; way too much is being blindly attributed to piracy, & nothing but.
“these pirates simply pirate because they can. And they’re the problematic ones.”
And those cases, I can in part agree with you upon, but even in those particular cases, though, there’s still the question of “would he actually pay for the game if it wasn’t pirateable, or not?” I could go & download Infinite Warfare right now, for example, solely in order to experience its campaign, seeing as the game in question isn’t Denuvo-protected, but either way, I’d never pay for it regardless, because it’s just not worth it in my opinion. Not that I will, anyway, as its campaign looks like sh*t, but yeah, for example.
Hell, that’s even a general issue with most of the Denuvo-protected titles to date, even; the ones that sell badly mostly sell badly because the game is either broken (ex. Just Cause 3), &/or just bad, period (ex. Far Cry Primal). As for the others (ex. Battlefield 1), they’ll most likely sell well regardless of Denuvo, which means Denuvo is by-&-large a pointless investment, especially considering its associated costs.
Piracy by people who are actually capable of, & both willing to pay for the actual product in question is sad, I fully agree, but like I said, considering geo-locking, economic hardships, etc. etc. etc. I’d say those are undoubtedly nothing more than a minority of all pirated downloads, rather than the majority.
“I’d argue arcades have largely died off because gaming is no longer limited to
arcades, & they as a result failed to adapt to the changing times”
— True, but the fact remains that the only alternate revenue channel that games had no longer exists in any functioning capacity. Which is why I brought arcades up… not to delve into into reasons “why” they aren’t as widespread as before.
“Revisiting the “single revenue stream” argument; well, some games, at
least, have secondary revenue streams, I’d say. Some have a vibrant,
active eSports league (yeah, I know, they’re the exception, not the
rule)”
— Businesses don’t thrive on exceptions.
“whereas others have micro-transaction based marketplaces that could
quite possibly be generating considerable revenue for them, no?”
— Those would mainly be F2P games which don’t suffer from piracy to begin with.
” but then again, while putting on the market a couple of items that cost
$1000 would be controversial even if they were purely cosmetic, even if
you only sold 200-300 copies of each of those items”
— How are you assuming people would buy those additional items in the first place? Lots of folks just get the base game and only pay for additional DLC if they are really invested in the game. And speaking of additional content, even that gets pirated.
“Greenlighting a sequel for publisher-owned studios these days seems to
more often than not decree whether or not the studio will remain in
business, I’d say.”
— And developers are employed by such studios, providing for them a steady income which would otherwise not have been possible.
“which fell through, & resulted in them being shut down by their owners.”
— They fell through most likely because they ran out of funding. Remember they were always independent, so there were many more risks associated.
“if it were protected by Denuvo, I doubt its sales figures would have been that much better regardless”
— The question isn’t about a single example like Denuvo in particular but about whether piracy facilitates the need for DRM in general. Let’s stick to the topic else we risk drifting away from it.
“”would he actually pay for the game if it wasn’t pirateable, or not?”
— That is irrelevant. The point is the pirate is playing something he shouldn’t have. It discredits the people who actually paid for it. It’s the same as giving “participation medals” to those who come in last… it devalues the worth of the 1st place prize.
“I’d never pay for it regardless”
— Then you shouldn’t be playing it regardless, it’s that simple. For example.
“Hell, that’s even a general issue with most of the Denuvo-protected titles to date”
— Again we aren’t discussing “Denuvo”… we are discussing whether piracy facilitates the need for DRM in general.
“but like I said, considering geo-locking, economic hardships, etc. etc.
etc. I’d say those are undoubtedly nothing more than a minority of all
pirated downloads, rather than the majority.”
— And that again would lead me to give you USA’s example. How do you explain the fact that the USA contributes significantly to piracy, given that it doesn’t have any of the problems you just mentioned?
DLC has nothing to do with piracy. They get pirated as easily as the base game. DLC is mostly about money.
Back in my young gamer’s days, they were called expansions. And oh boy, some of them were well worth the money.
Not everything regarding DLC, some things. Like I said, as per one mid-sized publisher the idea behind DLC was to incentivize customers over the longer term as opposed to having them pay a lump sum at one go; something they might not’ve been willing to do and might resort to piracy instead. It’s debatable, true… but also something worth pondering about.
The Italians?
EA, SE, & U-Be-Soft too, until they give up on their DRM mania’s respectively.
CPY is italian, but from what i heard it is in fact 3 groups working together.
I thought CPY was Chinese…. :O
3dm is Chinese, conspiracy is Italian, cpy is 3 groups.
Ah, right.
My bad, my bad.
“Publishers can remove the Denuvo anti-tamper tech whenever they want to!”
And it’s about damn time we start demanding that they do, especially for older games.
Until CPY which is 3 groups from what i heard manages to crack open world games like just cause 3….which does take place in Italy…..i will not agree with you.
1- People don´t buy because they can´t crack.
2- Companies remove denuvo because cpy crack.
3- People will not buy as usual.
#uck logic… And who cares… i preffer to wait 30 years to play a game without denuvo.
Eat $hit and #ie with your #tupid proteccion.
You don´t deserve a coin anymore!!!!!
If the game gets free is a nother story.
I preffer to play older games then waste my time with your #tupid rules $hit propaganda.
DRM does absolutely nothing to increase sales. Nothing!
If anything, it decreases sales.
>“accomplished its purpose by keeping the game safe from piracy during the initial sales window.”
I’ll be honest. If this becomes the trend, I won’t be against that. As a principle, I’m not against anti-piracy measures. The issue is that it too often effects legitimate consumers.
A limited anti-piracy program wouldn’t be the worst thing.
But I have to say, I highly doubt this is the case. I don’t think this will become a trend, despite it being what I would want.