Civ7 now includes Denuvo

[Gorbles]

And in Australia, our laws mean that the publisher has to give you access to the game some other method because you bought the license from them. Steam is just a store front.

It's similar to how if you buy a Ford from your local dealer, and they go out of business, Ford still must uphold their side through other means.

This is a good law(s) to have, but I believe at the moment it hasn't been tested? It's still a theoretical measure that Valve has merely agreed (however sincerely or nominally) to. I know they got hit by a fine a few years back, but not much more than that.

 

[IdiotStyle]

As someone who bought games that went delisted on steam, i never had a problem to download any of them. I doubt it would change all of a sudden

 

[TreVor_ish]

Getting back on being rediculous, but on topic:
I don't trust any software made by Irdeto and won't buy CIV VII, if it has Denuvo.
The fact that information of it being attached to the game went live over a week after preorders opened, just made me trust 2k even less then I was before.
In the end, it's just a game.
Shame we won't get any physical version of it, even with the clock bundle.

 

[Atlas627]

Huh? My point wasn't that something terrible had happened. But that it was sufficiently close to something bad that it highlighted the possibility of something bad happening - even by accident. And not "possible" in the technical sense of "not theoretically impossible but very very unlikely in practice" but possible in the sense of "completely plausible". It shouldn't need pointing out that things like utility companies are more closely regulated than digital media platforms, but considering the absurd analogies being made, it probably does need to be said. Trying to ridicule concerns over something moderately likely to happen on the grounds that it's silly to worry about something very very unlikely to happen is a really weird combination of a strawman and a slippery slope fallacy.

I might have legal recourse depending on the jurisdiction. But "successfully sue a multi billion company in order to read a book" is not my idea of a good time. Other kinds of pressure might also make a company behave well, but there are more than enough examples (just with Sony for starters) that it's naïve to expect good behaviour just because of that. And, even if it does work, it leaves me without the book I wanted to read or the game I wanted to play while the thing sorts itself out - even if it's only a couple of days that's annoying.


I don't get what all the hyperbole is for. Digital purchases of media are super convenient, and I do them all the time. But that doesn't mean they're free of any drawbacks. Pointing out those drawbacks is reasonable, and attempting to ridicule them is itself ridiculous. I don't get why those who like (or dislike) something feel the need to pretend that there are no disadvantages (or advantages, respectively) to what they picked. Everything in life is a compromise, why attempt to ridicule that simple fact?

Ok, I'll try to be more specific, since I'm being read as totally off the wall, here.

The digital product can be ruined at any time, yes. This has been true and will continue to be true. If you have a principled problem with this, you simply cannot purchase modern products, because they all connect to the internet. Speaking as if Steam or Denuvo are categorically creating this problem is misleading, because Firaxis could also do this without using Steam or Denuvo.

If the problem is a practical one, then the actual likelihood of this happening is important. So how likely is it? The example you gave has 2 important traits: 1) Amazon made a mistake in their implementation, such that it is possible to accidentally remove someone's access to a product, and 2) the seller, not the storefront, triggered that part of the implementation. So for your example to be similar to what could happen with Steam, point 1 would require us to have any examples of Steam having a similar implementation (as far as I know, we only have examples of things being removed from Steam's storefront and yet still usable by people who have already purchased), and point 2 would mean Firaxis would have to trigger this, not Steam. If we're doubting Firaxis via point 2, we would have to doubt them regardless of Steam's involvement, so this is no longer a complaint about Steam.

The example you've provided is a difference of kind. If you want to argue it isn't a difference of kind, then we've instead gotten to the point where "Firaxis could ruin the software anyway".

I'm not saying Steam has no drawbacks. I'm saying those drawbacks are not different from the reasonable alternatives proposed. The only alternative that gets rid of the online distribution problems is to get a copy from a company you trust, which works without a connection to the internet, so that there is no way for that software to be changed later (and the trust is necessary for the initial product to also be safe and preservable). Steam currently can function without a connection to the internet, so if you trust that then Steam already performs this function. If you don't trust that (with no evidence, as far as I can tell), then why do you trust, well, anything else? Why do you trust Firaxis to not build planned obsolescence into the product? Why do you trust the government to not replace your currency? Because none of those are in those parties' interest, and would not happen due to incompetence. They'd have to do it on purpose. And furthermore, if you trust Firaxis to give you a good product in the first place, why do you not trust them to not make malicious changes later?

I don't need to argue whether or not it's naïve to trust. I only need to point out that nothing has been shown that would make trusting Steam better/worse than trusting Firaxis, so trusting one but not the other is self-contradictory.

And the only reason I can imagine that you think I'm ridiculing you is because you view yourself as being combative, and thus I must be combative in my responses. I'm not ridiculing you. I am having a debate. I think my (hyperbolic, yes) points are relevant. I'm not saying them to tell you to shut up, I'm saying them to explain how I understand your argument. If I misunderstand, you explain and we continue. If I were ridiculing you, I'd throw in insults. If something I've said seems like an insult, I apologize.

 

[WildW]

Getting back on being rediculous, but on topic:
I don't trust any software made by Irdeto and won't buy CIV VII, if it has Denuvo.
The fact that information of it being attached to the game went live over a week after preorders opened, just made me trust 2k even less then I was before.
In the end, it's just a game.
Shame we won't get any physical version of it, even with the clock bundle.

With regards to 2K, whether Irdeto's software is malicious ultimately doesn't matter. Denuvo is very controversial and the way 2K handled its inclusion was dishonest. I respect that people are willing to put their foot down over that.

 

[Dale]

This is a good law(s) to have, but I believe at the moment it hasn't been tested? It's still a theoretical measure that Valve has merely agreed (however sincerely or nominally) to. I know they got hit by a fine a few years back, but not much more than that.

The fine you refer to is in regards to refund terms against Australian Consumer Law. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-relea...resenting-gamers-consumer-guarantee-rights#:~:

In regards to the situation I referred to, where the publisher is responsible not the platform, this is outlined in Australian Consumer Law, and does not require testing as it's a specific statement of law. As outlined here: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-online
The specific part being:

 

[user330977]

They can also just take the game away for no reason at all. They could, at any time, simply remove it from Steam and render it legally unplayable. They could also turn off their authentication servers and achieve the same result. Then what?

I wrote a lot about why Steam was a bad idea all those years ago, but I lost the argument and now here we are. I just hope that it doesn't get worse. Denuvo is definitely worse.

You didn't lose the argument. No one listened, or were too blinded by the "benefits" of purely digital "ownership". As with many other sectors, convenience kills.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In this instance, as in every other, every single gamer will make up his/her own mind as to what is 'acceptable risk' or the correct side of the Risk - Convenience equation to come down on. All any argument or statement can do is provide more information for them to use in making their decision.

But I notice a lot of argument here based entirely on what some Big Bad Company could do, but (so far, I haven't bothered reading all the fevered posts) nothing on what the consequences for the company would be if they did it.

Remember the First Rule of Free Market Economics: if something is profitable, somebody will do it. So what do you think would happen if Steam or any other firm arbitrarily removed paid-for content from numerous gamers?

Three things:

1. They would be out of business.
2. Some other company would be offering the same services they did, since there is a market for those services.
3. It would be a Cold Day on Wall Street before any company was dumb enough to remove paid-for content without really, really good Cause - as in, a Legal Order from a high court.

This doesn't make the capability inherent in Denuvo and other 'service' contracts any less of a concern/danger as a trend, but it does place the dangers in context: they are not only dangerous to us gamers, they are also potentially Fatal to the company involved.

Call it Mutually Assured Destruction in gaming . . .

 

[Kev1916]

Warhammer 40k Space Marine 2 rejects Denuvo and DRM with a simple “no”​

Saber Interactive confirms that Warhammer 40k Space Marine 2 will not include Denuvo or any other anti-piracy DRM when it launches.

01/09/24

Also perhaps 2K should pay more attention to there customers . . .

Saber also confirms that any and all microtransactions will be cosmetic only, there will be “no in-game cash shop,” and all gameplay content will be free to everyone.

 

[pokiehl]

Warhammer 40k Space Marine 2 rejects Denuvo and DRM with a simple “no”​

Saber Interactive confirms that Warhammer 40k Space Marine 2 will not include Denuvo or any other anti-piracy DRM when it launches.

01/09/24

Also perhaps 2K should pay more attention to there customers . . .

Saber also confirms that any and all microtransactions will be cosmetic only, there will be “no in-game cash shop,” and all gameplay content will be free to everyone.

It's almost like doing what your customer base want is an option... who knew?

Except...Warhammer 40k Space Marine 2 is using an anti-cheat software like Denuvo Anti-Cheat, called "Easy Anti-Cheat." Easy Anti-Cheat gets...you guessed it...kernel level access on your computer. EAC has its own baggage of controversy.

Space Marine 2 rejects Denuvo and DRM with a concise and simple "no"

Saber Interactive confirms that Warhammer 40k Space Marine 2 will not include Denuvo or any other anti-piracy DRM when it launches.

www.pcgamesn.com

 

[Professor Phobo]

Anti-cheat is often much more intrusive (by necessity) than anti-tamper stuff.

 

[pokiehl]

Anti-cheat is often much more intrusive (by necessity) than anti-tamper stuff.

And here is an interesting tidbit from the EULA of a game with Easy Anti-Cheat:

If you deny EAC the ability to process your personal data in accordance with their privacy statement or request EAC to remove or delete your personal data, we have the right to block your access to the Game and prevent your use of the Game.

So why are we celebrating this Warhammer game? EAC gets installed on your computer, gets kernel access, and harvests personal data. And if you have the gall to ask them to remove or delete it, they can take the game away from you.

 

[Professor Phobo]

That's not unusual, you have to agree to play with the Anti-Cheat enabled to access the game in a lot of multiplayer titles. My shooter of choice uses EAC, I wouldn't be allowed to connect to a match without it enabled. These are big companies who go through certification processes, I'm not worried EAC is like reading my fan-fiction or something. It only launches when I launch the game in question and closes when I inevitably rage quit as I am too old and slow to play shooters against "the kids" anymore.

 

[pokiehl]

That's not unusual, you have to agree to play with the Anti-Cheat enabled to access the game in a lot of multiplayer titles. My shooter of choice uses EAC, I wouldn't be allowed to connect to a match without it enabled. These are big companies who go through certification processes, I'm not worried EAC is like reading my fan-fiction or something. It only launches when I launch the game in question and closes when I inevitably rage quit as I am too old and slow to play shooters against "the kids" anymore.

I'm not upset about it and I don't think it's unusual. I just think it's wildly inconsistent to praise this Warhammer game for not having Denuvo Anti-Tamper, when it in fact comes with a far more invasive 3rd party program (EAC) that harvests personal data and gets kernel access. Kernal access being the primary reason everyone gets upset about Denuvo, even though Anti-Tamper doesn't get kernel access and the first page of this thread is misleading.If we're going to be upset about privacy and 3rd party programs and scary language in EULAs and everything else, let's at least be consistent and accurate.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Actually that brings up a related question - what anticheat will Civ 7 use for multiplayer?

 

[Kwami]

Kernal access being the primary reason everyone gets upset about Denuvo, even though Anti-Tamper doesn't get kernel access and the first page of this thread is misleading.

The primary reason that some people get upset about Denuvo. There are so many other reasons to reject it.

 

[pokiehl]

Actually that brings up a related question - what anticheat will Civ 7 use for multiplayer?

I doubt it will use anything. Most non-competitive multiplayer games don't have anti-cheat, and I can't name a single 4x/strategy game with anti-cheat. No Total War, Paradox, or prior Civ game has it.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

Actually that brings up a related question - what anticheat will Civ 7 use for multiplayer?

CIV had (so far) no competitive multi-player, such as leagues or so on. Well, you had tournaments, but they are from private groups that use discord or the like. Such groups are based on trust, and would likely ban players that are cheating (just having the same mods are suffisient most of the time).

 

[TreVor_ish]

There is a rather detailed post from reddit about anticheats and their practices:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/comments/1axkn3j/what_2030_hours_of_research_has_taught_me_about

 

[Professor Phobo]

CIV had (so far) no competitive multi-player, such as leagues or so on. Well, you had tournaments, but they are from private groups that use discord or the like. Such groups are based on trust, and would likely ban players that are cheating (just having the same mods are suffisient most of the time).

That seems fair enough. I doubt there's much of a market for Civ cheats.