Ok let's just roll with them having lax standards, from this should follow you should also use lax standards? That's absurd and doesn't change you just denying true statements here.whyterabbyt wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 11:18 amThe fact that piracy can impact sales of software is not only known but self evident and commonly discussed...underscoreraven wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 10:44 amAre you saying it's not factual? The fact that heavy DRM can impact performance is not only known but self evident and commonly discussed in other markets like AAA games and their usage of denuvo.whyterabbyt wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 4:27 pm So the argument is 'This guy who makes tools to enable theft says that doors work better without locks, and anyway nobody can prove that unlocked doors will mean you could get burgled.'
Someone is demanding 'proof' of that, whilst so their failure to adhere to their own standards is being required.
I could have compared them to completely copy protection free software and it still would be fair. What exactly is disingenuous here? Me not wanting to purchase software made to run worse?whyterabbyt wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 11:18 amSo you're comparing the heaviest possible cryptographic load likely with the simplest, most naive implementation of keyfiles? That sounds reasonable, and not even slightly disingenuous.underscoreraven wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 10:44 am if for the software to do it's job it first needs to perform complex cryptographic tasks for validation then that obviously adds cpu cycles.
The benefit of serial numbers/keyfiles is that you don't have to do all of that, the worst you'll get with that is an unnoticable miniscule increase in load time for the check on whether a license has been provided