It would be nicest not to use unethical software (Denuvo or any other DRM) and distribute the game source with the binaries since the initial release. I can't believe that this needs to be repeated and that our understanding of open source has been perverted to 'is it on Github, and do the devs/community work for free so we can take advantage from them?' and that it's ok for games to be proprietary software...
As someone who regularly used to visit the ship and heavy rain websites for video games, I actually feel the modern usage of Denuvo—protect sales for the first bit, and then remove it for the long tail—is a decent middle ground between EA-style DRM that locks down a game and its servers for ever, versus having a game completely blown open the first day, and a new-ish studio losing a considerable amount of genuinely-deserved revenue the first few days after release because they had no DRM on.
Nobody needs video games. It’s ok if you can’t play video games.
I'm not seeing the connection here. By the same logic, nobody needs software, it's ok if you can't use software, thus proprietary software is not unethical?
By that logic nobody needs game developers and it's OK if we remove any laws (e.g. copyright) that protect them.
I don’t see how you arrived at that conclusion. People pirate games as if they’re entitled to play them without paying. If someone can’t afford the game they want, too bad. There were plenty of games I could not afford as a kid, so I did other things.