this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
519 points (98.0% liked)

Linux Gaming

15250 readers
127 users here now

Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.

This page can be subscribed to via RSS.

Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.

Resources

WWW:

Discord:

IRC:

Matrix:

Telegram:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It has always played great tbf.

The always online is the only annoying part

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (13 children)

I will never buy a game that requires me to be always online.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 39 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Massively single-player offline

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, the implication that it didn't run before by the headline is strange. Denuvo is officially supported in Proton.

[–] beefcat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Single player works fine offline though

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] beefcat@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It already played great on the Deck (Denuvo hasn't been a problem for Wine/Proton for several years), but the removal of DRM is always a win in my book.

I'd like to see this trend of publishers stripping it out of their games after a couple years continue.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

I am pretty sure that when Denovo pricing leaked a while ago, we learned that keeping Denovo in a game is way more expensive the longer you keep it (yes, it's basically a subscription service for game publishers)

Denovo is really only designed for early sales, and it accomplishes that pretty well.

[–] pinchcramp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Why wait a few years and not avoid it completely? I doubt there's any reliable data that confirms a significant loss in sales if they launched without Denuvo and its ilk. DRM is at best useless and at worst "harms" customers.

[–] gila@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't really measure the proportion of players that would buy the game were they not able to pirate it, which makes it easy for CEOs to imagine every incidence of piracy as a lost sale. Who's going to convince them they put the cart before the horse? It absolves them of direct responsibility for almost any shortcoming possible

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] beefcat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I doubt there’s any reliable data that confirms a significant loss in sales if they launched without Denuvo and its ilk.

There's no publicly available hard data one way or the other. However the fact that publishers continue to use it while abandoning other forms of DRM suggests that there is probably some benefit.

I don't really buy the argument that the only people who pirate content are people who would never pay for it to begin with. I know too many fellow software engineers that make comfy 6-figure salaries and pirate everything they can and spend money when it's the only option.

[–] pinchcramp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

… there is probably some benefit.

I was not thinking about the business side but rather about what the customer gets out of it. What bothers me about DRM systems is that they cause problems that you don't have with pirated game, which is the opposite of how it should be. I don't want to struggle to get a game running, when the pirated version does not caus those problems. That being said, I haven't bought any large AAA title in years and my experience is from 7+ years ago. Maybe things have changed but I kinda doubt it.

[–] beefcat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I think this is why Denuvo has been successful. Where old DRM solutions got up in your face with onerous installation procedures, installing borderline rootkits, and ridiculous activation limits, Denuvo is essentially invisible to the end-user. It's not ideal, but if developers are going to insist on shipping DRM I'll take this over what we used to deal with any day of the week.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 3 points 1 year ago

After the first 6 months would suffice. That's where they make the money.

[–] corytheboyd@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

I feel like this is just a new cash grab technique, and it’s actually pretty smart. The audience of people who will buy immediately despite DRM will do their thing, first wave of money complete. Over the next few years, trickle in more cash through steam sales. Once that well dries, get one more wave of cash by removing DRM, which appeases the audience that abstained the whole time, collecting their cash.

Edit: my half baked conspiracy theory got some attention. the argument that companies remove DRM like Denuvo because of cost makes way more sense, Occam’s razor holds true. Both can be true, they save money by removing the DRM, which has the nice side-effect of creating a small new wave of sales. Win/win. I’m sure Denuvo hates this and will one day make it more difficult for studios to just remove their software, because money.

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I heard Denovo is a subscription so eventually it's less cost effective to keep paying for it

[–] filcuk@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whoa, it looks like you may be right. Quick search shows it's a sum for the first 12 months, then about €2000/mo after.

[–] Heavybell@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

The one time software as a service comes through in our favour…

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] habanhero@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Sorry but that doesn't really make sense. In that scenario it is more sensible to just release a DRM free game at start, because the first group would buy either way and the second group would buy at the higher launch/near-launch pricing (since games drop in prices over time). It doesn't make sense to make essentially 2 versions of the game over such a span of time like you described.

A more realistic scenario would be that there is some cost / licensing fee to use Denuvo tech and it no longer makes financial sense for Doom Eternal to do so, hence BOOM! DRM free.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] brognak@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty sure that's literally Denuvos pitch. They don't expect it to be uncracked forever, just last long enough to maximize initial sales and then eventually remove it when it's done its job. It's like a padlock on a bike, keeps honest people honest but won't actually stop a real thief.

[–] beefcat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It stops real thieves "long enough", which is why developers and publishers continue to use it. Lots of AAA games go uncracked for a year or more. The first few months or so are the most critical time for sales.

They've come a long ways since the '00s, when DRM schemes were both far more draconian and rarely effective for more than a few days.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Good to hear Denuvo being removed but overall bad that it was ever included. If I'm ever looking for more DOOM 2016 then I know it exists.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rederick29@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Surprised that it still had Denuvo up until now. I'm pretty sure they accidentally released a Denuvo-free executable on the day the game launched so the game was pretty much cracked instantly.

I doubt Denuvo helped their initial sales at all. Doom Eternal is a good game and that's what actually makes them money, not stopping the pirates out there.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

All denuvo has to do is generate more sales than it costs to license. And it seems it does given how popular it is. If it wasn't a profit generating thing for games companies then absolutely they wouldn't pay for it.

[–] StarkillerX42@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ran like shit for me at launch. Maybe I should give it another try now.

[–] arefx@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

It's been running like a dream for a long time I can only imagine it runs impeccably

[–] nogrub@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

crys in armored core 6. even thou it's really easy to run it without easy anti cheat

load more comments
view more: next ›