• CursedByTheVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    True.

    I could maybe see an argument being made in favor of having these kinds of security measures for the first month after release to protect sales, since it’s usually the period in which most sales are secured; devs do need a sustainable income after all. But that would also necessitate ignoring the potential performance degradation resulting in a poor first experience for players, and many publishers just leave it in for the lifetime of a game, which is a disaster waiting to happen (as seen here).

    Overall, I think piracy is mostly a pricing issue above all else. With AAA titles getting increasingly more expensive and being released in broken states, it’s not surprising that people don’t want to spend $70 on a game that they might end up hating and opt to “demo” the game first. Refund policies can help alleviate the issue, but are hardly a silver bullet, with games inserting tons of fluff at the beginning to ensure you exceed the playtime threshold.

    Either deliver the games you promise, or price them according to what’s actually there, and I’m sure the majority of gamers would be content in paying full price. DRM only serves to increase friction for the honest people paying for your games.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The only devs who could maybe benefit from sales protection are precisely the devs who can’t afford to utilize it. Namely indie developers who actually see all the profit directly, instead of having been paid up front.