Support NeoGAF

[Frozy]

I get it I suppose, it just feels self-defeating.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's the lesser evil.
We have to make sure they don't come out of this thinking they did the right thing, otherwise it'll happen again on future products (and well, this product can still be patched and have Denuvo removed).
And potential buyers need to be warned.

There's no better place, or a system for it, than the review system on the store page itself.

 

[Budi]

Eeeeh, if you had problems with the game that prevented you from enjoying it. Leave a negative review by all means. If the game had Denuvo but the game didn't suffer from any issues because of it, mention in the review that it has Denuvo if you think it's still important. But leave the review based on what you thought about the gaming experience as a whole.

Don't buy something, review it negatively and refund it because it has Denuvo. That's stupid as hell.

If you know someone who pirates games, punch them into face for publishers adding Denuvo to their games.

 

[ghostjoke]

Eeeeh, if you had problems with the game that prevented you from enjoying it. Leave a negative review by all means. If the game had Denuvo but the game didn't suffer from any issues because of it, mention in the review that it has Denuvo if you think it's still important. But leave the review based on what you thought about the gaming experience as a whole.

Don't buy something, review it negatively and refund it because it has Denuvo. That's stupid as hell.

If you know someone who pirates games, punch them into face for publishers adding Denuvo to their games.

Not to pick on you solely, you're just the most recent post with this sentiment.

What if you had a negative experience with Denuvo on one game but not another? I had it with Dragon Age (lost 2 hours of my life on it with customer support to no avail until I turned to a crack) and some people definitely had issues with Sonic Mania. It's a potential issue that crops up now and then while providing no value to the consumer. It's always going to be a net negative that deserves addressing. In the age of Metacritic and mass Steam reviews, where the individual review means nothing, mass negativity is often the only way to promote a potentially damaging issue and make people scroll to the written explanation.

It's far from ideal and there are situations where I think the review bombing was dumb (Half-Life/Dota). With so few ways to get word out in a meaningful way, people use what they can. There's nothing more direct that right next to the purchase button. The better solution would be for Steam (and co.) to implement either a more robust review system (I'd also say some way to encourage people to revisit their reviews after major changes) and/or make it explicit what form of DRM is on a product (there are curators that do this, but that system is rarely talked about). Until then, a negative review about a potentially damaging feature is the only real thing people can do to show their dissatisfaction of its inclusion and warn others. Sega tried sneaking this in under the radar and I'm thankful I waited because I don't want to waste my time again after the before-mentioned Dragon Age fiasco.

The publishers are the only ones who can change this. Chances are they'll have an even more intrusive DRM down the line with how quickly Denuvo gets cracked these days. I understand the argument that it's a counter to cracks, but until I see a DRM with 0 issues across the board and the removal down the line, I will be against it. The more people who see DRM and think "potential problem, no benefit" the better. If this game was actually delayed for two weeks for DRM integration, it deserves as much negative feedback as it can get. Going forward, it will also be interesting to see how it impacts the modding scenes. It would be great for an easily moddable modern 2D sonic game. It's another part that I and others anticipated after the reveal that the core game was great.

 

[Marcel]

If you know someone who pirates games, punch them into face for publishers adding Denuvo to their games.

And be sure to tell the police that the NeoGAF video game discussion website told you to do it.

 

[Budi]

Not to pick on you solely, you're just the most recent post with this sentiment.

What if you had a negative experience with Denuvo on one game but not another? I had it with Dragon Age (lost 2 hours of my life on it with customer support to no avail until I turned to a crack) and some people definitely had issues with Sonic Mania. It's a potential issue that crops up now and then while providing no value to the consumer. It's always going to be a net negative that deserves addressing. In the age of Metacritic and mass Steam reviews, where the individual review means nothing, mass negativity is often the only way to promote a potentially damaging issue and make people scroll to the written explanation.

Then leave negative review for the game you had issues with. I won't leave negative reviews for every game that has skill based matchmaking because other games had problems with how it worked. I don't leave negative review for a game when others are suffering from bad perfomance either, so others having problems with Denuvo in the same game I'm reviewing won't affect my own review. The review is about my own experience with the game.

I have a lot of issues with Steam or user reviews in general. Too many to go through here.
And for Denuvo overall, I wish everyone would remove it after certain time period. Let's say a year, or maybe just half. If the game gets cracked, remove Denuvo asap. Since I also do care about the game preservation that is often brought up. And it should be on the Steam page of the game if the game has Denuvo.

 

[Yarbskoo]

If you know someone who pirates games, punch them into face for publishers adding Denuvo to their games.

To be honest, it seems like it'd be a lot easier to just punch the publisher directly.

 

[LordKasual]

How is that abuse?

People should just shut up and swallow their unhappiness about draconian DRM?

ITT we tell paying customers they're wrong for using the review feature as intended

That's the whole point of reviews.

1) no, that's not what game reviews are for, which is why it is abuse

2) didn't say it was right or wrong, just telling it how it is.


I personally don't agree with blasting the entire works because of some DRM feature that can largely be ignored in most cases.

But if you plan to fight DRM all scorched earth like, then its your prerogative


i'd just be really pissed off if I worked on a team to make a great game, but some corporate directive lead to everyone assuming it was shit before they even got to the title screen

i'd rather people just, you know, not buy the game on that platform.

 

[Ascheroth]

1) no, that's not what game reviews are for, which is why it is abuse

2) didn't say it was right or wrong, just telling it how it is.


I personally don't agree with blasting the entire works because of some DRM feature that can largely be ignored in most cases.

But if you plan to fight DRM all scorched earth like, then its your prerogative


i'd just be really pissed off if I worked on a team to make a great game, but some corporate directive lead to everyone assuming it was shit before they even got to the title screen

Thankfully, Steam Reviews are not only game reviews but also product reviews. The game is only part of what you pay for.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking a game is fantastic but still leaving a negative review because you're not satisfied with things surrounding the game. (DRM, publisher/developer not patching things, price,...)

 

[Frozy]

To be honest, it seems like it'd be a lot easier to just punch the publisher directly.

With a punch that looks like this:

 

[LordKasual]

Thankfully, Steam Reviews are not only game reviews but also product reviews. The game is only part of what you pay for.

well there's my logic loophole

¯\_(&#12484_/¯ carry on then

 

[Sorcerer Supreme]

Steam is not DRM, how many times does this need to be said?

how is it not? you cant play games without steam like you can GOG. how is that not DRM?

 

[ghostjoke]

Then leave negative review for the game you had issues with. I won't leave negative reviews for every game that has skill based matchmaking because other games had problems with how it worked. I don't leave negative review for a game when others are suffering from bad perfomance either, so others having problems with Denuvo in the same game I'm reviewing won't affect my own review. The review is about my own experience with the game.

I have a lot of issues with Steam or user reviews in general. Too many to go through here.
And for Denuvo overall, I wish everyone would remove it after certain time period. Let's say a year, or maybe just half. If the game gets cracked, remove Denuvo asap. Since I also do care about the game preservation that is often brought up. And it should be on the Steam page of the game if the game has Denuvo.

This is how it should work in an ideal world, but AAA developers don't seem to be moving away from Denuvo and it rarely gets addressed (Jim Sterling and a Bombcast a few months ago are the only recent things I remember with any kind of in-depth talk as of late). It scares me away from buying games because I don't want to download 60+ GB to find it doesn't work. But simply ignoring the games doesn't address the problem.

It's a shitty situation all round, but the onus falls on publishers first. After that, journalists to investigate the matter beyond a rare news article that gets forgotten in a day. It would be nice to get some more concrete information about the effects of DRM. Failing that, consumers to make their voices heard. It has proven to get a reaction at times like with the recent GTA modding controversy.

I think anything that has a net-negative for consumers as a whole deserves a ! in the game description. Even a Denuvo label would probably be nothing more than a word for a lot of people until they get bitten. The ideal solution would be positive/negative reviews and a separate "key points" section near the top like how PCGamingWiki does it. Have it be voted on like tags by users to separate it from outright negative reviews. I don't see that been a feature with how its sole purpose would be the drive away potential buyers unless some law comes into being.

I don't disagree with you, I just don't see a better solution with the current tools.

how is it not? you cant play games without steam like you can GOG. how is that not DRM?

https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_Big_List_of_DRM-Free_Games_on_Steam

The Steamworks (or whatever it's called) DRM is not a requirement. Steam can work in the same way as the GOG client if the developer chooses. Most just prefer a minimal level of DRM.

 

[Ascheroth]

how is it not? you cant play games without steam like you can GOG. how is that not DRM?

See:

Steam can hardly be draconian DRM, because it's not DRM at all.

I know this, because I've released a DRM-free game on Steam.

How about reading the thread instead of raising the same talking points that have been answered many times already again and again.

It got tiring like 5 pages ago.

 

[Brushguy Woodthreep]

i'd just be really pissed off if I worked on a team to make a great game, but some corporate directive lead to everyone assuming it was shit before they even got to the title screen

Indeed, I'd be really pissed off at the publisher.

 

[Budi]

This is how it should work in an ideal world, but AAA developers don't seem to be moving away from Denuvo and it rarely gets addressed (Jim Sterling and a Bombcast a few months ago are the only recent things I remember with any kind of in-depth talk as of late). It scares me away from buying games because I don't want to download 60+ GB to find it doesn't work. But simply ignoring the games doesn't address the problem.

It's a shitty situation all round, but the onus falls on publishers first. After that, journalists to investigate the matter beyond a rare news article that gets forgotten in a day. It would be nice to get some more concrete information about the effects of DRM. Failing that, consumers to make their voices heard. It has proven to get a reaction at times like with the recent GTA modding controversy.

I think anything that has a net-negative for consumers as a whole deserves a ! in the game description. Even a Denuvo label would probably be nothing more than a word for a lot of people until they get bitten. The ideal solution would be positive/negative reviews and a separate "key points" section near the top like how PCGamingWiki does it. Have it be voted on like tags by users to separate it from outright negative reviews. I don't see that been a feature with how its sole purpose would be the drive away potential buyers unless some law comes into being.

I don't disagree with you, I just don't see a better solution with the current tools.

While I accept Denuvo myself (I'm sorry) because of it's intention, it's been made clear many times with some good arguments why others don't. Pubs don't include Denuvo to be anti-consumer, but consumers are the collateral damage which is most unfortunate. I'm not hoping or asking more games to use it and I can absolutely appreciate pubs that are willing to take the possible hit, since they don't want to hinder their consumer experience in any way by including DRM.

I also want gamers to voice their concerns whenever they have them, you mentioned GTA V and the backlash. Another great example would also be the original Xbox One reveal, it was made very clear that shit like that wouldn't go through so they had to backpedal on it. My problem is just with the venue in this case and they way some people are doing it by not even playing the game but refunding it just so they can put up the review. But I guess my best option would be just to accept that Steam reviews will not offer me any value as an aggregate, since this isn't really even the only thing I have issues with. Even without these "review bombing incidents" it's a lot of work to find decently written reviews from there.

 

[MUnited83]

how is it not? you cant play games without steam like you can GOG. how is that not DRM?

You absolutely can. In fact, i've done it plenty of times.

 

[Arkage]

It seems that all these anti-DRM proponents believe that if the DRM has any problems whatsoever that affect performance or installation, it should be completely removed. And since all DRMs will inevitably have problems, even if miniscule in scope, they are all bad.

Meanwhile publishers believe that if DRM prevents any lost sales whatsoever, it should be added. And since all DRMs have prevented piracy, even if miniscule in scope, it is worth it.

In any case, since DRM like Denuvo has very low defective rates for the number of games installed with it vs the number of problems that arise, the vast majority of people aren't going to give a shit. Even the enthusiast crowd only gives half a shit, let alone casual gamers. I game on PC with a high end laptop and really don't care about Denuvo beyond if it causes me problems. If it does, I'll care, if it doesn't, I don't. If the DRM screwed you over in a game, feel free to trash it in a review. But trying to build a movement of trashing games on principle alone is silly.

 

[LukasTaves]

I'm all for leaving bad reviews if the DRM in place caused you problems, like what happened to the OP. But, if you never had any problem and still leave a bad review because it contains a DRM you don't like then it's a completely different situation... Companies should be entitled to put whatever DRM solution they like, as long it doesn't cause problems to paying customers.

 

[Boss Doggie]

It's like people forgot the Games for Windows Live fiasco where saves won't load or games just won't outright start because you can't connect. I remember those dark days with Batman and SFIV.

1) no, that's not what game reviews are for, which is why it is abuse

I personally don't agree with blasting the entire works because of some DRM feature that can largely be ignored in most cases.

i'd just be really pissed off if I worked on a team to make a great game, but some corporate directive lead to everyone assuming it was shit before they even got to the title screen

How is it not the purpose of a game review? The DRM is part of the package in the PC version of the game. It is as fair as giving bad reviews to a poorly ported game. And DRM may seem ignorable, but then shit happens and you realize it's too late to do anything.

And yeah you'd be pissed, but at the same time you'd also be angry at the bigwigs that you'd probably state your thoughts since we're in the social media era after all. And don't forget that this stuff has happened many times ago, with broken ports of good games and developers showing grief. And it's not like you are scorning the game - we've seen great games with great scores except for certain ports.

 

[Ascheroth]

It's like people forgot the Games for Windows Live fiasco where saves won't load or games just won't outright start because you can't connect. I remember those dark days with Batman and SFIV.



How is it not the purpose of a game review? The DRM is part of the package in the PC version of the game. It is as fair as giving bad reviews to a poorly ported game. And DRM may seem ignorable, but then shit happens and you realize it's too late to do anything.

And yeah you'd be pissed, but at the same time you'd also be angry at the bigwigs that you'd probably state your thoughts since we're in the social media era after all. And don't forget that this stuff has happened many times ago, with broken ports of good games and developers showing grief. And it's not like you are scorning the game - we've seen great games with great scores except for certain ports.

"It's fine now, who cares if it breaks in 5 years, it's your fault if you haven't already played it by then. Just play the new games, 5 years is ancient, man. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ "

Yeah, this isn't rocket science. There are games you can't play right now without a crack because DRM servers went down or the DRM doesn't work on newer windows versions (SecuROM *cough*).
This shit has historic precedent. If you can't prove to me that your Denuvo game will still work in 10 years, you're going to have to live with people not trusting you and treating it as a fault of the product they're buying.
And if your argument is "well, you said you can still play them with a crack, what's the problem", then I don't know what to say except that you're beyond help.

This "It doesn't affect me know, I can make a stink when it's too late"-mindset is annoying.

 

[Bowl0l]

I'm all for leaving bad reviews if the DRM in place caused you problems, like what happened to the OP. But, if you never had any problem and still leave a bad review because it contains a DRM you don't like then it's a completely different situation... Companies should be entitled to put whatever DRM solution they like, as long it doesn't cause problems to paying customers.

I don't think any companies is entitled to insert a kill switch in the software they are selling.
5 years later, S. Enix wants to take down Denuvo authentication server because they can't afford to continue paying and they don't have the source code.
S.E.: "Ops! Not my problem."

 

[Boss Doggie]

"It's fine now, who cares if it breaks in 5 years, it's your fault if you haven't already played it by then. Just play the new games, 5 years is ancient, man. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ "

Yeah, this isn't rocket science. There are games you can't play right now without a crack because DRM servers went down or the DRM doesn't work on newer windows versions (SecuROM *cough*).
This shit has historic precedent. If you can't prove to me that your Denuvo game will still work in 10 years, you're going to have to live with people not trusting you and treating it as a fault of the product they're buying.
And if your argument is "well, you said you can still play them with a crack, what's the problem", then I don't know what to say except that you're beyond help.

This "It doesn't affect me know, I can make a stink when it's too late"-mindset is annoying.

Yeah SecuROM too. I remember that shit with Sims 2 and Spore. I think there's also another infamous one but the name eludes me.

 

[Ascheroth]

Yeah SecuROM too. I remember that shit with Sims 2 and Spore. I think there's also another infamous one but the name eludes me.

Probably StarForce or Tagés.

 

[Stumpokapow]

You can cherry pick games that happen to be DRM free, which is only discovered after end users test and post on forums that is the case, after it has already been released and sold on the store. Sure.

Yes, I summarized this as your third version of your argument -- you don't want to look up if a game is DRM free or not so it must not be. Okay, great.

Valve does not intend for you to ever copy the files out of the Steam folder and make backups to run them later, they expect you always to be accessing, downloading, and launching games through Steam.

It's not clear to me how anyone would prove or disprove this, but what I can prove is that for those DRM free games, you can copy the files out of the folder and run them on other computers, just like GOG. And because many many people are explaining this in the thread, no one taking part in this conversation can possibly not know that. So, who in this conversation is this form of, I guess, "knowledge DRM"??? affecting?

Also, lets be real for a minute. No-one actually downloads their Steam games. They purchase 200 games on Steam sale and they sit in their library.

Ah, I see, so your actual point was Steam is DRM because you don't like people who use Steam. Excellent, your fourth argument is your best yet.

 

[EventHorizon]

DRM was one of the main reasons I left PC gaming. I got tired of looking for the type of DRM on each game. I don't mind the general concept of DRM but I can't stand a game that:

1. Puts code on my PC that is hard to get rid of
2. Can be remotely disabled

Ironically enough, after I moved primarily to consoles I started buying games digital which still allowed #2. I've since seen the error of my ways, and now buy only physical disks unless there is a great digital sale.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Probably StarForce or Tagés.

Yeah Tages. Fuck that shit with the install limit.

 

[llien]

People unhappy with DRM should stop pirating games and complaining about DRM. I still don't get why people who don't pirate games can complain about DRM.

I wonder the opposite, why would pirates care, as it is those who do not pirate games are the ones who's affected by DRM.

 

[RionaaM]

I'm all for leaving bad reviews if the DRM in place caused you problems, like what happened to the OP. But, if you never had any problem and still leave a bad review because it contains a DRM you don't like then it's a completely different situation... Companies should be entitled to put whatever DRM solution they like, as long it doesn't cause problems to paying customers.

Sure they are. And I'm entitled to calling them out for putting an expiration date on the games I want and/or own.

I wonder the opposite, why would pirates care, as it is those who do not pirate games are the ones who's affected by DRM.

True. It's like asking "Why do customers care about piracy warnings on DVDs?" Well, because the people who paid are the ones who have to suffer through them, while the guy who downloaded a ripped copy can enjoy the movie without that crap.

 

[Alexander DeLarge]

i'd just be really pissed off if I worked on a team to make a great game, but some corporate directive lead to everyone assuming it was shit before they even got to the title screen

Imagine being a member of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided development team and knowing that some corporate dickhead killed the IP (again).

Sure they are. And I'm entitled to calling them out for putting an expiration date on the games I want and/or own.

This is more than fair. Unfortunately publishers don't see user sentiment much, they only see sales and if their bullshit pushed customers away, it wasn't their business practices, it was a lack of interest/crowed market and genre/whatever nonsensical excuse they can come up with so leadership never takes the blame.

 

[Theonik]

This is more than fair. Unfortunately publishers don't see user sentiment much, they only see sales and if their bullshit pushed customers away, it wasn't their business practices, it was a lack of interest/crowed market and genre/whatever nonsensical excuse they can come up with so leadership never takes the blame.

Which is why, buying the game, reviewing it, then refunding it stating in both that your issue is the DRM is not a bad practice.

 

[Teppic]

I can't leave bad reviews for things I don't buy.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Durante
Banned

wat

 

[hotcyder]

wat

Rip in peace

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

If the game lists the appropriate DRM in the store page, and you still buy it. You have no right to leave a bad review for it, imo. The reviews are a tool to help users make purchases. If the description is accurate about DRM, you're not helping by leaving a negative review.

 

[likedamaster]

These complaints and behavior towards devs/companyies trying to protect their interests is a joke. Piracy is still alive and well. Though, it is dying because of drm, these companies shouldn't make it easy for them because some consumer regardless of motives wants them to remove it.

 

[Frozy]

These complaints and behavior towards devs/companyies trying to protect their interests is a joke. Piracy is still alive and well. Though, it is dying because of drm, these companies shouldn't make it easy for them because some consumer regardless of motives wants them to remove it.

Besides the bolded part being false, they should not screw consumers in their fight against piracy.
Not to mention that when the game gets cracked, the pirates don't have to suffer from it, while we do, unless they remove the DRM in a patch shortly after (and the majority of the games don't do that).
Meaning that, at the end of the day, this DRM ends up promoting piracy.

 

[TeamLeftMatch]

These complaints and behavior towards devs/companyies trying to protect their interests is a joke. Piracy is still alive and well. Though, it is dying because of drm, these companies shouldn't make it easy for them because some consumer regardless of motives wants them to remove it.

Is it? Because I haven't seen any evidence that piracy is dying due to DRM. In the contrary, Sim City is the most pirated game of all time, even with its DRM. I don't see why companies have to make a paying customer jump through hoops while a pirate doesn't do any of that. Why is it so hard for or people to understand a company can protect their IP without making the paying customers their bitch. If it truly easier for pirates to get a game with DRM then Denuvo is the worst DRM ever considering it gets cracked within the first week of release. How can companies like GOG survive if we are to believe that not having DRM ruins a game sale.

 

[Miniature Kaiju]

Though, it is dying because of drm

DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. Most games get cracked within weeks of release, at most. If anything has helped with piracy was making the whole ecosystem around buying games (i.e. storefronts, discovery, pricing, etc) more convenient.

All DRM does is inconvenience legal software owners.

 

[CecilRousso]

These complaints and behavior towards devs/companyies trying to protect their interests is a joke. Piracy is still alive and well. Though, it is dying because of drm, these companies shouldn't make it easy for them because some consumer regardless of motives wants them to remove it.

Don't care what they do against pirates, as long as it doesn't effect me as a paying customer, which implementing DRM does.

If DRM was absolutely needed to survive on the platform, then I would reconsider that stance, but that's not the reality.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Where are people getting the "piracy is dying because of DRM"?

 

[Temeculan3000]

Yes, I summarized this as your third version of your argument -- you don't want to look up if a game is DRM free or not so it must not be. Okay, great.

It's not clear to me how anyone would prove or disprove this, but what I can prove is that for those DRM free games, you can copy the files out of the folder and run them on other computers, just like GOG. And because many many people are explaining this in the thread, no one taking part in this conversation can possibly not know that. So, who in this conversation is this form of, I guess, "knowledge DRM"??? affecting?

Ah, I see, so your actual point was Steam is DRM because you don't like people who use Steam. Excellent, your fourth argument is your best yet.

I use Steam, I purchase all of my PC games on Steam. Even when it is available on GOG for the same price. Because it is more convenient to have on Steam. I still think it is DRM, I just think the convenience outweighs the benefits of buying DRM free.

Also, DRM free does not necessarily mean you have a license to run the software. If Valve bans my account and revokes my licenses, I am not legally allowed to run those DRM free games I made backups of. Although the chances of anyone taking any legal action against me is extremely low.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Sign me up for "Bad Reviews for Bad Practices".

There doesn't seem to be many outlets where developers listen so we need to use what we can.

 

[IcyRhythms]

Sign me up for "Bad Reviews for Bad Practices".

There doesn't seem to be many outlets where developers listen so we need to use what we can.

Twitter? Facebook?

I don't know if being disingenuous about how you really feel about your playthrough because of some DRM or not being able to use community driven mods is the way to go about things. If it didn't hurt the experience, I don't think people should rewrite their existing review, or even create one just to hate.

 

[c0Zm1c]

Twitter? Facebook?

Developers/publishers will take less notice of those than where the game is being sold (Steam), where poor user ratings can directly affect sales.

 

[Budi]

Developers/publishers will take less notice of those than where the game is being sold (Steam), where poor user ratings can directly affect sales.

How will we ever give feedback to Playstation and XboX? Should we had written bad reviews for Prey on Steam because it didn't have the promised PRO enhacements on Playstation?

 

[Niceguydan8]

Not to pick on you solely, you're just the most recent post with this sentiment.

What if you had a negative experience with Denuvo on one game but not another? I had it with Dragon Age (lost 2 hours of my life on it with customer support to no avail until I turned to a crack) and some people definitely had issues with Sonic Mania. It's a potential issue that crops up now and then while providing no value to the consumer. It's always going to be a net negative that deserves addressing. In the age of Metacritic and mass Steam reviews, where the individual review means nothing, mass negativity is often the only way to promote a potentially damaging issue and make people scroll to the written explanation.

Not the person you responded to, but I still don't see that as necessary. By all means talk about the bad experience you had with Dragon Age, but to me a review is of your experience with the game. If you had no problems with Sonic Mania and care enough to write a review, I feel like you could include Denuvo as a potential concern but should also indicate that you had no problems when it came to experiencing what the game had to offer.

I think it would be really shitty to essentially lie about your experience with the game. It wouldn't be giving the publishers of the game valuable feedback and it wouldn't be valuable to people actually looking at your review. When i read a review, I'm fine if somebody explains why they had a problem with Denuvo in that particular game. If they don't provide any context outside of "Denuvo is bad and it's in this game so this game is bad," then I see no value in that review. It's useless to me.

 

[LukasTaves]

I don't think any companies is entitled to insert a kill switch in the software they are selling.
5 years later, S. Enix wants to take down Denuvo authentication server because they can't afford to continue paying and they don't have the source code.
S.E.: "Ops! Not my problem."

A game not working after 5 years is precisely what I said that it should warrant a bad review. However, until it happens why would you give the game a bad review even you haven't had a single issue with it?

 

[styl3s]

I always give a negative review to a game that has shitty DRM that interferes with my gaming experience because it's part of the fucking game i paid for. I have the right to review a product i paid for just like everyone else.

If a game i want has a DRM free version i will always buy it over a steam version with DRM because shit like denuvo hurts the consumer more than anything else.

 

[IcyRhythms]

Developers/publishers will take less notice of those than where the game is being sold (Steam), where poor user ratings can directly affect sales.

Absolutely awful games have sat between mixed-mostly negative and still sold thousands of copies. Extremely poorly optimized dogshit. See something like H1Z1 and Ark. I really don't think those reviews matter as much as some think they do. I agree that some consumer will take notice, but not the majority.

 

[Linkark07]

If you know someone who pirates games, punch them into face for publishers adding Denuvo to their games.

I would have to punch all my friends. They mock me for buying games, while they happily pirate them. And despite I try to convince them that pirating is bad, that it could make developers stop making games for PC or porting console games to PC, they get angry at me. It is annoying but I have accepted they are a lost cause.