- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/25331613
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m honestly fine with DRM, as long as it’s removed within my definition of reasonable time. I’d say a year vor two.
Once the DRM is removed it allows for archiving and preserving the piece of media — as well as pirating copies.
And then you have Capcom, who put fucking denuvo years AFTER a game’s release
hmm, what about what they say about it harming the hardware and making the game slower ?
That’s one of the reasons I don’t like buying games with Denuvo. Waiting a few years before buying games is something I usually do anyway, so at that point Denuvo DRM would’ve already been removed.
Considering companies can easily sell new copies of games after 2 years, I’d still be fine with a longer period of time. I want developers to make money.
I’ve seen a Kickstarter that would open source their game after 2 years if they raised $4.4 million or so. They didn’t reach that goal, but they open sourced the previous game in the series after about 10 years.
For just removing DRM, I think somewhere between 2 and 10 years is the sweet spot. I mean, I’ve still got 10-year old games on my list I’d be willing to buy, haha
Not having DRM is a plus value. People with money don’t actually bother to pirate.
I believe the comment I replied to changed what it said. I recall something about making it a law that DRM should be removed after a reasonable time period of 1 to 2 years.
I agree that DRM sucks. I didn’t agree that it should be law to remove DRM a year or two after release.
Hey bro, sometimes I just like to steal.
