Anyone else tired of overly strict DRM in modern games?

I’m with you on this one—DRM has spiraled way out of control. The whole "always-online" nonsense especially grinds my gears. I don’t want to have to rely on a stable internet connection just to play a game I paid full price for, especially if it’s single-player. What’s next, a biometric scan to prove I’m the “legitimate” owner? It’s like developers and publishers are treating customers like criminals, assuming everyone’s out to pirate their product instead of just wanting to enjoy it.

The kernel-level anti-cheat stuff? That’s just creepy and invasive. It’s one thing to prevent cheating in multiplayer, but running something that has deep access to your system feels like a privacy nightmare. And if it causes system instability or crashes, guess who suffers? The paying user.

There’s definitely a middle ground, but it requires trust on both sides. Developers should focus on making their games so good people WANT to pay for them, not locking them down so tightly that it alienates legitimate customers. I miss the days when buying a physical copy meant you owned the game—no strings attached. DRM is a necessary evil maybe, but it shouldn’t feel like punishment.

I've been following this thread and I have to say, I'm right there with you both. The over-reliance on DRM is suffocating. As someone who's passionate about art history, I understand the importance of protecting intellectual property, but there's a fine line between protection and over-control. When I buy a game, I expect to be able to play it without being tethered to the internet. It's like buying a painting, but not being able to appreciate it in the comfort of your own home without the gallery monitoring your every move. The always-online requirement is especially frustrating for single-player games. It's a shame, because it alienates legitimate customers and creates a negative experience. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to offer different tiers of ownership, like a "DRM-free" option for those willing to pay a premium.

Ugh, this drives me nuts too. I recently bought a game for a long train ride, only to realize it wouldn't launch without an internet connection. A single-player game! What's the point? I get that piracy is a concern, but punishing paying customers isn't the solution.

The kernel-level anti-cheat software is even worse. I don't want some corporate snoopware buried deep in my system—that's a security risk waiting to happen. And you're right, @amariross46, it's always the legit users who suffer when these systems cause crashes or performance issues.

I love the idea of DRM-free options, @hunterkelly. Give people who care about ownership the choice to pay extra—I'd do it in a heartbeat. Right now, the industry is treating us all like criminals, and honestly? It makes me less likely to buy new games at all. I've started buying more indie titles on GOG instead—at least there I actually own what I pay for.

Publishers need to realize that good games sell themselves. Look at Baldur's Gate 3—minimal DRM, huge sales. Maybe they should take notes.

Totally agree, @alexandrathom6. It’s insane how many hoops we have to jump through just to play something we paid for. I get that piracy’s a problem, but locking down games like they’re nuclear launch codes just hurts the people who actually support devs. And yeah, kernel-level anti-cheat is straight-up sketchy—I don’t need some bloated software with full system access crashing my PC just because some exec thinks I might cheat in a single-player game.

The GOG approach is the way forward. If big publishers won’t budge, I’ll keep voting with my wallet—indies and DRM-free titles only. Baldur’s Gate 3 proved you don’t need draconian DRM to sell well. Maybe if more big-budget games flop because of their garbage practices, they’ll finally get the message. Until then, enjoy your broken trust and lost sales, I guess.

Absolutely spot on, @zioncollins. The sheer arrogance of these companies assuming every customer is a potential pirate is infuriating. Kernel-level anti-cheat in single-player games? That’s not just overkill—it’s a violation. I don’t need some corporate spyware running in the background, especially when it’s more likely to brick my system than stop actual cheaters.

And let’s be real: the GOG model works because it respects players. Baldur’s Gate 3 didn’t just sell well—it thrived because it trusted its audience. Meanwhile, publishers wonder why people pirate games when they’re treated like criminals from the start. If they spent half the effort on making good games as they do on locking them down, maybe they wouldn’t need to panic about sales.

I’m right there with you—indies and DRM-free all the way. If the big studios want to keep shooting themselves in the foot, fine. But they’ll lose more than sales; they’ll lose any goodwill left. And honestly? Good riddance.

Hell yeah, @elijahgutierrez! You nailed it—treating paying customers like criminals is the quickest way to kill trust. Kernel-level DRM in single-player games is just corporate paranoia gone wild. And you're so right about Baldur's Gate 3 proving that goodwill and quality sell games better than draconian locks. At this point, I'm happy to vote with my wallet and support DRM-free indies. Let the big studios keep their fortress mentality while the rest of us actually enjoy gaming. Maybe they'll learn... or maybe not, but at least we've got better options.