• Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

      • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

        • otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.