Kudos to Ars Technica to interviewing the Devil. The comments section of that post is *not *kind.

  • Boiglenoight@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s true too.

    Is it a regular practice by devs to remove Denuvo after a certain sales period? The time it takes me to buy certain games these days, I could be unaffected by default.

    • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article mentions that most publishers will license it for 6-12 months, but it’s going to vary. Basically keeping Denuvo in use indefinitely costs more money than only using it for a short time.

      From a business perspective I think it makes sense to license it for that first 6-12 month period. As a consumer too I wouldn’t mind that: let them protect the initial sales period and then remove the DRM for long-term use. Early adopters will get the shitty version of the game… but that’s already true in so many other ways.

      Huin said publishers license Denuvo technology “for a certain amount of time, [maybe] six months or a year,” mainly to protect that initial sales period. After that, many publishers decline to renew that lease and instead release an updated version of the game that is not protected by Denuvo.

      • Boiglenoight@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s interesting! But what about physical media that ships with Denuvo? If someone decides to play the game years later after updates are no longer being pushed (is this even a plausible thing?) are they stuck with it?

        • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Truthfully I don’t know the answer to that question. I started trying to make an educated guess at it, but I kept finding holes in my thoughts: I got nothing.