cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/25331613
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
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.
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.
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
💰 Please help cover server costs.
