[PCGamer] Denuvo opens its own Discord server to rehabilitate its image, has to shut it down 2 days later after players flood in to bully it

[lexluthermiester]

https://crack-status.info/search?q=denuvo

That doesn't seem to load, likely because of security on my side. I'll take your word for it. Got curious, went looking and can't find what I was thinking of.

Translation: your lack of reasoning ability has led you to the refuge of ad hominem. Now, you may safely return to seeking the true apotheosis of your existence .... MOAR HEAD SHOTZ.

No. Once again, I don't suffer fools. And I'm no longer willing to tolerate your nonsense. Move along.

 

[Endymio]

My firm point is that when you assume your customers are pirates, and make the experience of using your product worse because of that assumption, then you are not standing on a moral high ground

They're not assuming all their customers are thieves; just a large portion of them. Which, sad to say, experience has taught them to be true. Rational individuals don't get offended by such common-sense measures, for the same reason we don't go berserk upon seeing a locked vault door in a bank.

No. Once again, I don't suffer fools. And I'm no longer willing to tolerate your nonsense. Move along.

It's a public forum. When you make absurd statements and confuse your wants and desires with laws of nature, expect to be called out for it. Move along yourself.

 

[DirtyDingusMcgee]

I think "Bully" is the wrong word (especially since i don't agree that one can be bullied via keyboard, when the off button is so nearby). Someone in marketing thought this was a great way to boost public image and customer engagement, without stopping to realize that no one likes them. Whoever was in charge should have known better, but they did not. Hilarity ensued.

 

[AusWolf]

My comparison to shoplifting is to state that theft is paid for by the honest customer. We pay for theft with higher prices and DRM like Denuvo. Do you think pirates are going for older games that you can grab for $20 or less on a Steam sale, or are they going after hot, newly-launched AAA titles? And how did they afford a rig that can play these modern titles? There’s just a lot of justification going on, but if you’re broke and still want to game, you can do it legitimately. It’s just going to look different than a guy with lots of disposable income. Regardless, the reality is, we don’t know the collective economic breakdown of the pirate community, but I suspect there are many lost sales because people would rather get it for free, and they’ll justify it anyway they can. I’ve seen enough comments to indicate some folks just have an axe to grind with the studio, yet the game is still good enough to play, just not pay for. It’s theft on principle—not due to being broke.

The "you can afford a new PC, so you can afford legit games, too" argument goes out of the window when you consider the price of the newest titles. £50 is commonplace now, a lot of games cost upwards to £70. I'm not even gonna mention special editions, because those are truly astronomical.

During my student times, my yearly saving was just a couple hundred quid, if that. A lot of times not even that (out of my student loan that I'm still repaying, mind you). Buying only one of these new games would have put an end to all my PC upgrade plans.

So no... When your choice is either doing a modest PC upgrade to run the newest (pirated) games, or buy a new game or two with nothing to run them on, I think the choice is obvious.

As for the morality side of things: I would never ever steal even a chocolate bar from a supermarket, as I think that's wrong. But if there's a random dude in front of the supermarket offering me the chocolate bar for free, I'm not gonna ask if he'd paid for it before I accept it.

Which is equally true for your criteria for selecting video games. But that isn't good enough for you gamers. You want the most-uber, latest-greatest mega-AAAA+ title ... AND you demand it on *your* terms, rather than those who spent a small fortune creating it.

Well, the studio created the game for our pleasure, right? Then maybe they're interested in how to make it better, so that this discourse is actually beneficial for the industry? Or did they only think about money, so then screw all of us who already bought it? If that's the attitude, then screw them.

Then buy a game without DRM. Or entertain yourself in some manner. Or -- gasp! -- if you feel the market is so unfairly balanced in favor of studios, start your own, develop the game you desire, and sell it under any terms you wish.

Yeah because starting a game development studio is a piece of cake. Everyone does it at least 3 times every weekend.

You're right -- you the consumer have much more power. I've never seen a game purchaser sued by a studio, nor have I seen a purchaser invest millions of dollars of their own money in a game purchase, only to lose it all.

Have you tried suing any of these companies? How much did it cost you? Did you win?

I've heard about a bloke who couldn't sue Disney after his wife died at Disneyland because his Disney+ subscription had a clause in the EULA that basically prevents you from having any claim towards Disney for anything. Yeah, I smell a lot of consumer power there.

Every EULA I know allows you to cancel the sale post-purchase if, upon reading the EULA you don't agree to its terms. Even if one doesn't, substantial case law exists to this effect. Your point falls flat.

Then why does Epic remind me of a 14-day return window every time I get something on it (I only use it for free games)? What about Steam's return policy? Why do we need that if you can just disagree with the terms at any time?

 

[Endymio]

The "you can afford a new PC, so you can afford legit games, too" argument goes out of the window when you consider the price of the newest titles. £50 is commonplace

You just admitted to your fundamental error: your belief that you have a moral right to the "newest" games ... and not just any new title, but the most expensive AAA+ titles. There are literally tens of thousands of older games which range from free to $20, more than you could ever play in ten lifetimes.

As for the morality side of things: I would never ever steal even a chocolate bar from a supermarket. But if there's a random dude in front of the supermarket offering me the chocolate bar for free, I'm not gonna ask if he'd paid for it before I accept it.

That's even more morally reprehensible. You're not even brave enough to steal for yourself -- but you'll allow someone else to steal for you, if you can (wink wink) pretend it wasn't stolen.

Have you tried suing any of these companies? How much did it cost you? Did you win?

I've successfully filed more than two dozen lawsuits in my lifetime, and -- more saliently -- used the threat of litigation to settle without suit even more.

Then why does Epic remind me of a 14-day return window every time I get something

You can't read a EULA in 14 days? Your claim was you were being forced to agree to EULA terms invisible until after sale.

I've heard about a bloke who couldn't sue Disney after his wife died at Disneyland because his Disney+ subscription had a clause in the EULA that basically prevents you from having any claim towards Disney for anything.

LOL, you heard no such thing. The true story is that Disney attempted to raise that objection, and almost immediately dropped it. Even had they not, the judge would almost certainly have tossed it, as it fails the 'meeting of minds' axiom of contract law. And -- most importantly of all -- even had both those events not happened, the suit still would have proceeded to arbitration, with Disney still liable for the exact same amount. Facts matter.

 

[Vayra86]

Then why does Epic remind me of a 14-day return window every time I get something on it (I only use it for free games)? What about Steam's return policy? Why do we need that if you can just disagree with the terms at any time?

Far more interesting is why the EULA only contains broad options, but never describes what exactly you will come across in the game. So you're forced to sign off on something you really can't know about yet. You simply don't know how it will affect your purchase, because it depends entirely on the nature of the changes applied to it.

But I wouldn't waste too much time on this guy anymore, the obvious isn't obvious clearly, we know this will go on forever, the guy's here to oppose whatever we say, not get to a mutual understanding of things. In some spaces that would be classified as trolling, and if not that, clearly a legislative internet hero, winning 'dozens of cases'.

Lmao

 

[TumbleGeorge]

What greater pleasure than buying a buggy cat in an opaque sack and it turns out to be a hedgehog. On whose thorns you hurt your (gold)finger.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's a public forum.

It sure is, one that runs the forum software called Xenforo. That software comes equipt with a feature for users to utilize that will block unwanted nonsense. It's called the "Ignore" button. Feel free to use it. I just did. Why, you ask? Well...

When you make absurd statements and confuse your wants and desires with laws of nature, expect to be called out for it.

...this for example. "Laws of nature"?!? Seriously? Good grief..

 

[AusWolf]

You just admitted to your fundamental error: your belief that you have a moral right to the "newest" games ... and not just any new title, but the most expensive AAA+ titles. There are literally tens of thousands of older games which range from free to $20, more than you could ever play in ten lifetimes.

Moral this, moral that... All this talk sounds like "blahdy blah" in anyone's ears coming from a 3rd world or developing country. It's cute when Westerners think that everyone thinks in terms of "if I have the money, I'll buy the game, but if I don't, then I'll live a boring and miserable life without games", but it couldn't be further from the truth. Like I said above, people who will never have 70 quid for a game in their entire lives will never buy any game for 70 quid, but if they can obtain the game from other means, they will. Did they steal 70 quid's worth of IP from the game studio? The hacker who uploaded the game probably did, but the mere players? I don't think so. Besides, they don't pirate games to feel righteous, or morally justified or something, it's just the reality of things. You may not like it, but those people don't exist to stroke your highly moral ego and do everything the way you feel is right looking down to them from your ivory castle.

That's even more morally reprehensible. You're not even brave enough to steal for yourself -- but you'll allow someone else to steal for you, if you can (wink wink) pretend it wasn't stolen.

You find my opinion morally reprehensible? That's so adorable! Maybe I should change my way of thinking because a random dude from the internet doesn't like it. Or maybe not.

On a serious note, I'm not pretending that something is not stolen. I just don't give a shit. Besides, how much do these mega-corporations steal from us with their shitty pricing? Do you think everything they do is justified, and we're the bad guys in every scenario? Once you manage to comprehend the simple fact that no one is innocent, especially not in a world like the one we live in today, I guess we can continue talking.

I've successfully filed more than two dozen lawsuits in my lifetime, and -- more saliently -- used the threat of litigation to settle without suit even more.

How much did they cost you?

I'm sorry to break the news, but not everyone lives in the glorious US-of-A, the home of lawsuits where you can sue every McDonalds employee who put a drop less ketchup in your burger than the next person's.

You can't read a EULA in 14 days? Your claim was you were being forced to agree to EULA terms invisible until after sale.

You claimed that you can object to the EULA at any time. I refuted this claim. Now you're saying that you have 14 days to do so? Make up your mind.

LOL, you heard no such thing. The true story is that Disney attempted to raise that objection, and almost immediately dropped it. Even had they not, the judge would almost certainly have tossed it, as it fails the 'meeting of minds' axiom of contract law. And -- most importantly of all -- even had both those events not happened, the suit still would have proceeded to arbitration, with Disney still liable for the exact same amount. Facts matter.

Do you have a source? I'd love to read up on this.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm sorry to break the news, but not everyone lives in the glorious US-of-A

Even here the drivel they're spouting is meritless.

On a serious note, I'm not pretending that something is not stolen. I just don't give a shit. Besides, how much do these mega-corporations steal from us with their shitty pricing? Do you think everything they do is justified, and we're the bad guys in every scenario? Once you manage to comprehend the simple fact that no one is innocent, especially not in a world like the one we live in today, I guess we can continue talking.

Well said.

 

[remekra]

Well the simple truth is that Denuvo works for blocking the games to be released day 1 on the high seas, most of them don't get cracked either ever or until Denuvo gets removed by developers. Sales guy from Denuvo goes to Execs in X games publisher, shows him that, tells that this will boost sales by this and this amount (doesn't matter if its true or not) and they go for it.

Cracked games were replaced by either buying shared steam accounts for 1$ or little more with the wanted game (sure it gets banned but you may finish the game by then) or buying keys from websites that sell them which doesn't get devs money anyway and you have fully online game, with updates etc. on your steam account.

This PR stunt was probably some genius idea to get his goals met, and it backfired. Nobody likes DRM, some tolerate it, some not and that's how life goes. But there will be no "Denuvo community" as that is not their purpose.

 

[dirtyferret]

@lexluthermiester
@AusWolf

just put him on ignore, it's not worth the hassle of debating him on his drivel. I have him on ignore and I know it's drivel without reading it just by your responses.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

They're not assuming all their customers are thieves; just a large portion of them. Which, sad to say, experience has taught them to be true. Rational individuals don't get offended by such common-sense measures, for the same reason we don't go berserk upon seeing a locked vault door in a bank.


It's a public forum. When you make absurd statements and confuse your wants and desires with laws of nature, expect to be called out for it. Move along yourself.

You seem to want to fight. Let me short this for you. The discussion is that if you want to claim arguments from a moral high ground you cannot stand on the assumption that your customers are pirates. Period, end of sentence.

If you want to claim that banks are moral or not, then you've decided to not have a discussion about Denuvo. The equivalent would be that you go into a bank, and get strip searched on the way out every single time. This would be if you walked in and used the vault, or if you popped in to deposit money into your checking account and were never within 40 feet of the vault. The pirate would be the person who used the external drive-through, and broke into a physical ATM to get money without having to be violated. Yes, it's illegal. On the other hand, as the customer, is it morally right to be treated as a criminal from moment one?


On the other-other hand there was an article a little while back where early 2000's data stated that 20% of a game's net revenue could be lost if pirated day one. That sounds bad...until you figure that video games have no spoilage, no shelf life, and basically no upkeep cost assuming you don't tie them to servers. It's amazing that the local grocery store can sustain that sort of loss rate constantly...but the video game industry cannot. Sounds like false equivocation to me initially...and then I remember that physical theft, spoilage, and damage in handling are all things that have no equivocation in software downloads...and I'm baffled that the industry has not managed to be any more profitable with their push to not having you own anything.

 

[dirtyferret]

On the other-other hand there was an article a little while back where early 2000's data stated that 20% of a game's net revenue could be lost if pirated day one. That sounds bad...until you figure that video games have no spoilage, no shelf life

They do have a price life cycle so after a year a PC game can drop in price by as much as 50% depending on the market. After two or three years it may settle at $20. So in theory if someone is to steal your goods/service, it's better to have them steal it at the lower end of the price cycle than the higher.

The real question is if those "20% of the game net revenue" would have purchased the game in the first place if piracy was not an option. That's a whole different debate that other people can have.

I'm baffled that the industry has not managed to be any more profitable with their push to not having you own anything.

I'm guessing you are saying that in jest but the video game industry is $200-plus billion globally—larger than all of film, television and music combined and all of them push to not having you own anything.

 

[AusWolf]

The real question is if those "20% of the game net revenue" would have purchased the game in the first place if piracy was not an option. That's a whole different debate that other people can have.

That's exactly my point. I don't think anyone pirates any game because stealing IP is their hobby or something. Unfortunately, our world revolves around money. Where there is none, people find other means to get by. And let's be honest, £70 is very, very expensive for a piece of entertainment even here in the West.

 

[remixedcat]

The "you can afford a new PC, so you can afford legit games, too" argument goes out of the window when you consider the price of the newest titles. £50 is commonplace now, a lot of games cost upwards to £70. I'm not even gonna mention special editions, because those are truly astronomical.

yeah and these studios piss away a ton of money of A list voice actors, offices in the most expensive areas, and exec salaries and the hardworking devs see very little of that too.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

until you figure that video games have no spoilage, no shelf life, and basically no upkeep cost assuming you don't tie them to servers

In fact, video games feed quite a few people. Not having maintenance costs is not quite the case, these people need to eat, their families need to eat, and that wouldn't happen if they didn't get a salary that was tied to the sale of a license to the game.

 

[AusWolf]

yeah and these studios piss away a ton of money of A list voice actors, offices in the most expensive areas, and exec salaries and the hardworking devs see very little of that too.

Not to mention consultant companies who with their "counsel", lower the quality of the game to abysmal levels.

 

[remixedcat]

Not to mention consultant companies who with their "counsel", lower the quality of the game to abysmal levels.

yup... and those create problems and sell the solutions

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Well, well, now what are you declaring denuvo to be, a symbiote or a parasite. And something was mentioned in the thread about the way the games are advertised. It is natural that in the short YT clips, the most attractive actions are selected. So are motion pictures. 60+% of the time I've regretted paying for a movie ticket. The other 40% of the time I was with my girl and I had no regrets.

 

[dirtyferret]

And let's be honest, £70 is very, very expensive for a piece of entertainment even here in the West.

I agree, I tend to stay away from games at launch and wait for price drops.
The people I know who do pirate games can easily afford the price and do so because 1)they can 2)don't want to spend the money 3) lack of repercussions. I'm not naive to the fact in the West we do have higher incomes and can afford the games and that's not the case everywhere. I just don't want to hear some fan boy tell me they can't afford video games when their signature starts with "Intel 14900k, RTX 4098, Seasonic 1200w PSU".

 

[remixedcat]

70 bucks is way too much for a game and games are getting shorter and shorter to fall in with the tiktok attention span crowd. or repetitive af FPS games with flashing lights and loot crates and vegas grade gimmacks. or paying 70 bucks for a game and 20 bucks for each DLC pack and ending up with 2 thousand dollars invested in one game like the sims is

 

[skizzo]

so a bunch of loser gamers with no life went out of their way to be dickheads. what a surprise. still very immature regardless of any "Denuvo sucks" argument.

 

[Endymio]

You seem to want to fight. Let me short this for you. The discussion is that if you want to claim arguments from a moral high ground you cannot stand on the assumption that your customers are pirates. Period, end of sentence.

What alternate universe are you posting from? There isn't a consumer-facing business in the world that doesn't take measures to prevent theft. Not one. Period. End of sentence.

there was an article [that] stated that 20% of a game's net revenue could be lost if pirated day one. That sounds bad...until you figure that video games have no spoilage, no shelf life, and basically no upkeep cost assuming you don't tie them to servers. It's amazing that the local grocery store can sustain that sort of loss rate constantly...but the video game industry cannot.

You're attempting to justify theft as "they can afford it". That's a morally reprehensible attitude. Period. End of sentence.

 

[Endymio]

It's cute when Westerners think that everyone thinks in terms of "if I have the money, I'll buy the game, but if I don't, then I'll live a boring and miserable life without games",

It's what you posters on this thread -- and thousands more like it on other forums -- say repeatedly. You NEED these latest AAA titles, but you can't afford to pay full price for them. Thus you justify your theft.

You find my opinion morally reprehensible? That's so adorable! Maybe I should change my way of thinking because a random dude from the internet doesn't like it.

Maybe you should change your attitude because theft is wrong. Most people learn this during their upbringing.

I'm not pretending that something is not stolen. I just don't give a shit. Besides, how much do these mega-corporations steal from us with their shitty pricing?

More abhorrently repulsive attempts to justify theft with flawed juvenile logic. No one "steals" from you by setting a price for their own property, no matter how high that price is. If they were selling fresh water or oxygen, you might have a slim shred of an argument. But video games? How pathetic.

You claimed that you can object to the EULA at any time. I refuted this claim. Now you're saying that you have 14 days to do so? Make up your mind.

Unsurprisingly, you misread. You claimed EULAs were "unfair" because in some cases, you must first purchase to read it. I simply stated that all such EULAs have a reasonable period to allow you to read them, and choose to either agree, or return the product. Would you like me to explain it again, using smaller words?