And I'm making my statement clear: I had to look up what "ratio'd" even means, because it's a term that would only be used by people that believe any conversations on Twitter even matter. The format is terrible for honest discourse.

The article itself points to Denuvo being willing to hire independent reviewers of people's choice to verify that Denuvo, when implemented well, does not affect game performance. The article also has a number of rational explanations as to why game builds that people claim "prove Denovu decreases performance" are not always the best proof.

If they've picked reviewers, and they're people you don't trust, that's a perfectly fair stance for argument. But requesting an independent review makes perfect sense to me. If, on the other hand, they prove themselves right, it would not be the first time "hero internet detectives" got things completely wrong.

We're bringing some bad behaviors from Reddit and Twitter here. Let's not start with not reading the article.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I read the article and they can hire all the reviewers they want, but my experience with DRM is not a positive. I haven't gained any benefit from it, but instead barriers to getting the game to work when I want it to. Even more so since getting a steam deck, and now going periods where I don't have internet access.

The benefits of no DRM versus DRM have become even more prevalent since then with games just working with no additional work arounds to renew the license for games that don't have DRM.

These pitches of DRM not being a negative are corporate ones. Why should I care about whatever excuses they make when the only concern for me is one as the end consumer. They are only selling points to me if I'm a customer of denuvo or an employee of denuvo. I am not being paid enough to try and spin my negative experiences with DRM as a positive.