this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
115 points (98.3% liked)

PC Gaming

15139 readers
433 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I thought this was literally the strategy? DRM for the first few months until sales slow down.

Then they remove the DRM in the hopes of getting another sales boost.

Removing the DRM is essentially free advertising.

[–] atkdef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The problem is, some developers/publishers simply never remove Denuvo.

Some examples I can think of, Ubi seems to never remove Denuvo, SEGA has Denuvo removed for some (probably due to the Denuvo offer at that time), but most are not removed.

I guess some are simply too notorious to really get a sales boost. I really want to buy those Ubi games on 95% off. UPlay required? Bye.

[–] doublah@sopuli.xyz 5 points 6 days ago

Most publishers now go for their monthly licensing model for Denuvo.

But I think Sega must have some kind of perpetual contract as an early Denuvo adopter they don't offer anymore, because otherwise they'd be losing money on the monthly payments for their older games.

As for Ubisoft, they just love DRM. They've had games stacking 5 different types of DRM before despite the obvious redundancy.