• WhoRoger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Oh come on

    1. It means they’re a bunch of twats that have never considered the future or their customer’s needs (some game devs and publishers release non-DRM versions eventually)

    2. You can’t guarantee how safe the crack is. If there was some really cleverly hidden malware, now it’s on them

    3. Cracks may still be imperfect and have issues. Again if something doesn’t work, now it’s on them

    4. Just how stupid does it make them seem? All this time fighting piracy and now they’d be lost without them. Because we know how the likes of R* handles their old properties. If they had to do it themselves, it would be a fuckup

    • iegod@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Whatever it is these kinds of arguments are trying to criticize, I don’t think the resolution is one that is favorable to gamers.

      I’d rather have a cracked cheap DRM-free copy than one whose new price factors in development to do correctly.

      Points 1 and 2 are jabs at the company postures sure but once you peel that back don’t tell me you want them back on the DRM train. Who cares if the company position seems silly.

      • WhoRoger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        So the only two options are to keep drm forever, or use cracked versions? Ever heard of GOG? Just how much do you think it costs to make two builds of a binary?