• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    "It’s not that it adds overhead on top, it’s just that it adds to the top some head over.

    • azalty@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      You must not get my point. What I’m saying is that if Denuvo is implemented properly, we shouldn’t see a difference that’s more than like 3%. If it’s more, then it’s called too often and thus a bad implementation from the devs.

      When comparison videos are shared, it’s often on games with bad implementations. You can also find some comparisons that don’t affect performance as much. In the end it’s the Denuvo implementation that’s slowing down, and that’s on the dev, not the company making unoptimized code.

      I’m not denying that it impacts performance: it does, but not as much as you might believe if properly implemented, which if not, is not Denuvo’s (the company) fault, but rather the devs’.

      • Barbecue Cowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I get you, but I think at a certain point if we’re relying on it being properly implemented and a large group isn’t then I’d say we’re back on denuvo as the party at fault for not addressing it and preventing it.

        It sucks, but we have to expect and plan for when people are stupid to a point because that is always going to be a key source of failure.