https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2023/09/doom-eternal-removed-denuvo-and-it-plays-great-on-steam-deck/
With all the new amazing games coming out basically every month, lets not forget some slightly older games worth playing. Like DOOM Eternal, that just removed Denuvo Anti-Tamper.
How else can they tell you about all the great deals and live streams they've been paid to promote? Won't anyone think of the ads?!?!
Ps, Blizzard did the same shit with their battle.net client when they removed the ability to pop out the friends list like 3 years ago (or centuries, it feels like), forcing you to use the client just to communicate with friends. All so they could blast you with advertisements to other services they provide.
Funnily enough, you probably own plenty already, and that attitude will change as soon as there’s a game in your wheelhouse you want.
Everyone always says this, but it’s hardly every true. Too lazy too go through your comments to see if it’s true, but people say shit just for upvotes all the time. Probably the same here.
that attitude will change as soon as there’s a game in your wheelhouse you want.
Oddly enough, I have managed to avoid DRM-infested games quite well so far.
I have far to many other games on my list I still need to play without DRM, to worry about new ones infested with it.
GOG is awesome, I do wish they had a native Linux client though, the only ones I've seen just package wine and run the windows version (also they use Snap 🤮).
I've been doing well with offline games so far. Personally, I think that there are so many, so, so, so, so, so many games out there, both free and paid, that obsessing over "that one game" makes little sense to me.
How very bold and presumptuous of you to dismiss almost everyone here claiming they prefer not to buy buggy DRM ridfled games as liars.
Judging by your history though it's not exactly surprising to say the least.
Lmfao, I specified one person.
And that’s rich coming from the person upvoting their own comments in a 3 day old post that’s dead….
Everyone always says this, but it’s hardly every true.
Your use of "everyone" in this context seems to imply a broad generalization including more than one person.
And that’s rich coming from the person upvoting their own comments in a 3 day old post that’s dead….
Ooh baseless accusations, gotta love those, perfect thing to whip out when your arguments are weak and someone's calling you on it. Doesn't surprise me in the least darling. Also it's quite rich coming from someone who posts the same post five times in multiple communities rather than using the cross-post function, a tactic commonly used by vote and post-count farmers, really not a good look on you bud.
Uhh my app doesn’t have the function and I’ve explained that multiple times in my comments you went through!
Everyone can be used to refer to singular or multiple! TYL.
Yeah, the implication that it didn't run before by the headline is strange. Denuvo is officially supported in Proton.
Agreed, but that's a big benefit on the Deck. Unless Eternal has some additional always-online requirement (and maybe it does).
It keep always trying to connect to the Bethesda servers, unless sd is set as airplane mode. It is annoying
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.
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.
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.
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
Essentially, it's probably some manufactured guesstimated metric that some sales executives pulls out of his ass for each release.
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.
There is definitely a benifit, it just doesn't necessarily have to be for the bottom line. If you are running a major publisher you are likely spending public shareholders money or executive partners money (with some skin in the game yourself) on these games.
At the very least based on the consistency some publishers use Drm we know getting Drm buys piece of mind/job security that whoever is managing the project is doing something to prevent shrink/theft.
It's like the ad line goes, nobody ever gets fired for buying an IBM.
There is safety in doing the best practice or industry standard.
That all said, it's entirely possible there is hard data out there that strongly suggests there is a cost benifit too it, and it's just not public data.
… 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.
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.
I'd be surprised if there WASN'T reliable data that confirms a significant loss in sales if they launched without Denuvo.
I don't think that astroturfers claiming to be pirates who "gave in and bought the game because of the DRM" is what people have in mind when they say reliable data.
Sure I don't deny that those people actually exist but I do also know that there is an incentive to push that narrative because they are spending money or time (in the case of In-House DRM) on implementing these measures so they got to make it seem as worthwhile as possible (especially in the case of publicly traded companies with shareholders).
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.
I heard Denovo is a subscription so eventually it's less cost effective to keep paying for it
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.
I heard Denovo is a subscription
This Reddit post implies that there is a one-time cost and that's it. This would make sense since Ubisoft and the likes usually do not remove it from their games.
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.
Well, the intent behind adding DRM at first is to maximize profit by making piracy more difficult. Trust me I hate DRM too, but it’s not like they add it for no reason.
but it’s not like they add it for no reason.
I didn't say anything about that. I'm saying the main reason Bethesda removed Denuvo from Doom Eternal is likely because of cost reasons, not because it's a marketing play to drive sales (like OP suggested).
@habanhero @corytheboyd Will they really re-release a game just to say it has no DRM to make more money in sales? that sounds really exploitative
They haven't re-released the game, it's just an update that removes the DRM which they have to continue to pay for otherwise
I mean, if there are people who want to buy it, why not? It would just be icing on the cake for Bethesda.
Yes I do. The whole point of AAA games is to rake in cash, and you still get a badass game in exchange for your money. My original sentiment was more “this is 10% slimy, but I get it, respect”
That's the intent behind it, how well does it actually work in that front well it's tough to say. Fact of the matter is I know this from hanging out in these communities people who aren't willing to pay for the game but still play it usually aren't willing to pay for it just to play it.
The actual amount of people who "give in" is tough to estimate, because many people who do it are either astroturfing or are pretending, and most of the people who do "give in" typically will keep quiet about it, it's not in their best interest to Brand themselves as a shill to other pirates.
So the legitimate people almost never speak up about doing this, and most of the people who speak up aren't really doing this either. So it's hard to say just how much the DRM actually curbs it, and since the companies and their shareholders are paying for it they would probably want to imagine that number to be as high as possible because if it isn't they really are paying for it for nothing more than an imagined benefit.
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.
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.
Edit denuvo lasts longer than I thought… https://fossbytes.com/list-of-all-popular-games-cracked-by-pirate-groups/
I mean, it isn't "new". This has been the semi-standard approach for games over the past couple years (decade?).
DRM at launch to protect quarter one sales. Remove DRM a year or two later as one of the final patches. It builds up good will with people who want to be able to "play this game forever" and probably reduces licensing fees to denuvo or securom or whatever.
Not every game does it and the fantasy of "We are going out of business. Time to make my last act to be removing DRM from my game" never made sense. But a lot have.
Doom eternal was cracked on day one of release. I believe in this instance, they "accidentally" pushed an update with an unprotected version.
When your game is as good as this one was, piracy can actually help to move more retail units.ID software and Bethesda know this better than most.
It only hurts sales when your product is trash.
If this were actually true, the vast majority of publishers would be running torrent sites rather than considering giving money to denuvo.
The reality is that it is an incredibly rare piece of media that benefits from piracy. Like "Game of Thrones is the cultural zeitgeist for five or six years" level of rare.
For the vast majority, it is either background noise or actively detrimental to sales. And is why we see so many pointless multiplayer modes and pre-order incentives.
The other thing that gets referenced is the devs who will say something like "if you are going to buy our game on a key reseller site, just pirate it instead". Which more speaks to how key reseller sites are built around chargebacks using stolen credit cards and exploiting regional pricing in ways that mostly screw over "the global south". As opposed to the idea that piracy will increase full price sales or whatever.
The other blatant bad faith argument that I always love to see is: "I pirate games to try them out. If it is worth playing I'll buy it". Which ignores the ever increasing amount of demos out there, stuff like Steam having incredibly generous return policies, and the reality that is "Well, this is fun but it is more like 40 dollars of fun. I'll play it now and then buy it later when I see it for that price" that TOTALLY happens.
If you're gonna pirate, pirate. But don't pretend it is somehow a moral high ground or that devs should work harder to prevent you from pirating their games but NOT use drm?
Dude, I literally played the pirated version for a weekend and then bought Doom eternal because it was so damn good. I do it all the time. It's in my steam library and I finished it twice and bought 2 expansion packs for it.
I will now also download version 6.66 + All DLC's from a pirated source for safe keeping to avoid any future fuckery via online services shutting down etc.
This is not uncommon behaviour at all. Many games are absolute trash these days even when the tech press gushes over them. In spite of your assertions, demos are almost a thing of the past. Hardly anyone does demos anymore.
My personal experience with chasing a refund after purchase does not reflect your experience either. Until critical mass builds into a full public backlash, if you've exceeded the return period (mere hours) then you are done.
Then you personally should go buy yourself a cookie (assuming you are representing things correctly).
That is not normal. Again, if it was normal, publishers would be running the torrent sites. But apparently, instead, those greedy publishers... want to make less money by making it marginally harder to pirate their games?
I think you would be surprised.
Games are expensive as hell in my country and the tech press have become completely disingenuous worldwide. A good review means nothing. I'm not about to drop $100AUD to $150AUD unless I know for sure that I am going to get a large number of enjoyable hours out of it.
I'm well aware of the old adage “never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity.” But...the number of times that a completely unprotected update is pushed in the first week of a release is too damn high for it to be accidental.
No. I am not surprised. In the slightest. I've seen that article. It was bullshit in 2017 and it is bullshit in 2023.
Because if you read even one line after the headline:
Results suggest a positive effect, but there's a huge margin of error.
And if you go all the way into the article itself
The 306-page "Estimating Displacement Rates of Copyrighted Content in the EU" report (PDF) points out a number of caveats for this headline number, not least of which is a 45-percent error margin that makes the results less than statistically significant
But even if we say that this glorified coin flip of an outcome has any validity: That doesn't say that piracy is good for a game. It says it is good f or gaming. To put it in context: Maybe people pirated Game of Thrones but actually bought the blu-rays for The Last Kingdom as a result. Which... is not at all useful to HBO (but better for people. Because Uthred Son of Uthred is a delightfully entertaining fuckboi). And is pretty much the same logic as "I buy the games I like" justifications.
Again: The people who ACTUALLY have this data are the publishers. Why would they be hellbent on trying to stop piracy if it actually made them more money?
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.
You'll be disappointed if you're looking for "more DOOM 2016"- Eternal is a different beast entirely. Feels much more like a realtime first person puzzle game than a mindless arena shooter. Knowing enemy weak points and what guns do the most damage to that specific enemy + micromanaging ammo, health and armor is a BIG part of Eternal's gameplay loop. It's very good, but it's quite far removed from 2016 in terms of gameplay.
Considering that this shitty DRM doesn't actually stop the game from being pirated, why even bother doing it?
Some guy had success selling the idea that it does stop pirating to someone in management or something.
Because the sales in the first weeks matters the most. A lot of people always want the latest things either for free or in the worst case, they will have to pay . Denuvo has shown that the anti piracy mechanism are effective enough to stop a working cracked version to appear at day one or two. In some cases it took people 2 to 4 days to release a working version without Denuvo. So its an easy gamble for publisher to release a version with Denuvo. https://www.makeuseof.com/what-is-denuvo/
In some cases it took people 2 to 4 days to release a working version without Denuvo
2 to 4 days? How about months and counting? Not to mention many Denuvo protected games are only playable through Switch emulation, something that might end soon.
Oh, I didn't know it was this bad. But I already heard that Nintendo wants to start to work with Denuvo. Which will take a toll on the already outdated hardware. Not to mention that you probably wouldn't be able to play Nintendo exclusives with 60 fps or more on PC anymore.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/07/denuvo-wants-to-convince-you-its-drm-isnt-evil/
Of the 127 Denuvo-protected games released since 2020, only half have had their DRM protection successfully cracked, according to a list maintained by the Crackwatch subreddit (this includes some games that officially removed Denuvo after being cracked). And among the half that have been cracked, the median title received a full 175 days of effective DRM before a crack was released, according to that same list. That's a lot better than the "under a week" Denuvo cracking times that were making headlines in 2017 and means the vast majority of recent Denuvo-protected titles can't be effectively pirated in their first month of two of sales, "where the bulk of the money is made for a premium game after being made available," as Huin put it.
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.
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.
It just means Denuvo DRM was removed, which can cause issues with offline setups. Probably won't affect performance unless it was particularly poorly implemented.
I didn't realize it had Denuvo. Maybe their claims that Denuvo doesn't impact performance isn't as much of a lie as I'd thought. I'm still waiting on them to post benchmarks though.
Looks more like a tricky headline. There's 2 claims there: Denuvo was removed. The game plays great on the Deck. The headline is just making it look like one lead to the other.
The article actually says "now that it's removed, maybe it plays even better." But doesn't tell us if it does.
Not to say Denuvo doesn't have a performance impact, this just isn't a smoking gun.