Resident Evil 7 Denuvo Gets Cracked in 5 Days - Polidicks

[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51754992]RE7's port is actually pretty amazing and I have heard nothing bad about Tales of Berseria's port either. So I don't know where this is coming from. The Japanese have learned. God Eater Ressurection and God Eater 2 Raging Burst is also good ports running at 60 FPS without problems. I think it's weird to state that, considering the Japanese are very protetctive and heavily against getting their work pirated. (See: Japanese laws on Copyright protection and how they handle pirates in Japan)[/QUOTE] They still haven't fixed a bug in RE7 where mouse seems to randomly stop working. It was there in the demo and is still there in the full game.

[QUOTE=Rahu X;51754952]There aren't that many Japanese devs I know besides Capcom, Konami, and Square Enix that are using Denuvo. Platinum hasn't used it yet, though given Nier is published by Square Enix, it might. SNK hasn't used it yet. FROM hasn't used it yet. Not even ArcSys has used it yet, and as much as I love their games, they usually sell like shit. Really, RE7 and MGSV are the only Japanese games that come to mind for me that use Denuvo. And I haven't heard of any Japanese devs having a falling out with PC gaming because of pirates. The only falling out I can remember is Koei Tecmo because of their stupid stance with DoA 5.[/QUOTE] The sudden influx of Japanese games being ported to PC is a trend that must've started somewhere. The idea of Ace Combat 7 suddenly being a multi platform release for PC, Nier Automata being a PC title, Ni no Kuni 2 being a PC title. There's a reason to believe they aren't just doing it because there's money. They have the protection they need to release these games on PC without being afraid of piracy. Now I hope Denuvo comes back with stronger protection as it is vital as a fan of japanese games that the PC scene doesn't go back to having no titles again. While I do enjoy Koei Tecmo's spam of Musou titles I'd like some other Japanese games on steam too.

[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51754992]RE7's port is actually pretty amazing and I have heard nothing bad about Tales of Berseria's port either. So I don't know where this is coming from. The Japanese have learned. God Eater Ressurection and God Eater 2 Raging Burst is also good ports running at 60 FPS without problems. I think it's weird to state that, considering the Japanese are very protetctive and heavily against getting their work pirated. (See: Japanese laws on Copyright protection and how they handle pirates in Japan)[/QUOTE] To add to Capcom's credit too, they're one of the most consistently good PC developers from the Japanese market. Other than the first PC release of Resident Evil 4 (which was outsourced to Sourcenext), every release afterwards from Lost Planet 1 & 2, Street Fighter IV, Devil May Cry 4, Dragon's Dogma, Dead Rising 1, Resident Evil 5 & 6, the re-released Resident Evil 4, and the HD remakes of 0 and 1 runs beautifully on almost any hardware and can attain ~60+ FPS easily. The only Capcom games that usually get criticism behind its ports were the outsourced ones like Dead Rising 2-4, Lost Planet 3 and DmC. [QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51755000]The sudden influx of Japanese games being ported to PC is a trend that must've started somewhere. The idea of Ace Combat 7 suddenly being a multi platform release for PC, Nier Automata being a PC title, Ni no Kuni 2 being a PC title. There's a reason to believe they aren't just doing it because there's money. They have the protection they need to release these games on PC without being afraid of piracy. Now I hope Denuvo comes back with stronger protection as it is vital as a fan of japanese games that the PC scene doesn't go back to having no titles again. While I do enjoy Koei Tecmo's spam of Musou titles I'd like some other Japanese games on steam too.[/QUOTE] I'd also love someday for Sega to consider porting the Yakuza series to PC, even if it just means getting the latest titles like 5, 6, 0 or the upcoming remake of 1.

[QUOTE=Monkey pie;51754407] I think statements like that come down to peoples ignorance in that case, i have a decent mac and a gaming desktop. guess what, i bought the gaming desktop because i want to play resident evil 7 and newer games.[/QUOTE] Not everyone has the money to buy more than one computer and you're kind of stuck with using Mac or such for work or other reasons whatever they may be and you can't use Bootcamp or WINE with denuvo protected games as I said before.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51755118]How are they supposed to get the money to improve it if they keep having to refund because it gets cracked faster and faster?[/QUOTE] Well like any company that fucks up they try to patch it as best as they can to save face.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51754250]No? When there's statistics to prove the opposite in the games made by these studios, it's not a "moot point", it's just a fact. A game being un-pirateable the first month or two improves sales.[/QUOTE] Which statistics? I remember having posted in these kinds of threads about how Spotify and Netflix actually [URL="http://bgr.com/2016/01/21/netflix-downloads-bittorrent-piracy/"]reduces piracy[/URL] and how The Witcher sold some 10 million copies despite having no DRM and arguing that making a better and more affordable service is the best way to kill piracy

I'm pretty sure I read that if the game gets cracked with in the first month, denuvo doesn't charge the company.

[QUOTE=ZachPL;51755221]I'm pretty sure I read that if the game gets cracked with in the first month, denuvo doesn't charge the company.[/QUOTE] There's really no way of knowing unless you have someone who works for Denuvo or a pretty reputable company. Same with how much it costs

I'm not sure how much Denuvo is worth it. For example Doom 4 sold over 1 million copies on Steam since it was cracked 7 months ago. Far Cry Primal wasn't cracked until few weeks ago and it barely reached 300 000 copies in a year. In the end the best copy-protection is a quality game and good word of mouth.

[QUOTE=The bird Man;51752568]I don't see evidence from any of you.[/QUOTE] The most obvious piece of evidence is this thread. Comments like this: [QUOTE=Covalent;51752267]Extreme system like Denuvo[/QUOTE] And people cheering on the failure of a DRM system that, to my knowledge, has [I]zero[/I] confirmed accounts of negatively impacting a legitimate user. It runs completely in the background with no visible impact on legitimate users, no inconvenience, not even a CD key, so when people are talking about it in the same tones as they would for Starforce or SecuROM it makes you start to wonder what exactly they have against it. The only legitimate complaint I see is that it relies on activation servers, but that's so utterly minor in comparison to the backlash, especially when Steam, which is much more invasive, doesn't draw the same kind of ire. Just to recap, Resident Evil 7 is a game that: -Has a demo -Doesn't have intrusive DRM -Isn't full of microtransactions -Is a reasonably long game to be worth the money It ticks basically every box on the 'I pirate because studios don't do [X]' checklist, and people are [I]still[/I] cheering on the DRM getting cracked. So you tell me, why are people so up in arms about Denuvo, and so excited about RE7 being cracked, if it's [I]not[/I] just about being able to get games for free?

[QUOTE=27X;51754652][B][I]Look at the color of your username[/I] and say that with a straight face.[/B][/QUOTE] I don't understand. [QUOTE=27X;51754652]The [B]majority[/B] of people who pirate don't want to pay for the game, it's really that simple. Whilst there are plenty of reason why they might come to that decision other than FREEEEEEE, the majority reason is still money.[/QUOTE] Still not an argument as it provides no evidence. No matter how 'obvious' the answer is for you, your post contains null. Massive text time! [B]I'm going to give you a list about things to think on. They're not facts nor things I completely agree on, they're just there to get us thinking at night:[/B] - Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason people may not pay for it could be multiple reasons and not just one as life is relative? - Have you ever considered the consequences of limiting the consumer platform of legit customers in order to fight the impossible since information will always be free? - No matter if piracy is positive or negative, is it worth the cost of doing so?, and are you prepared to let free market businesses realm with complete freedom of control after all we've seen major companies has done? - Haven't Spotify, Netflix, etc proven that providing a service that competes with 'free' actually decreases the amount of piracy? How many do you know says [I]"I downloaded this album last week, it's sweet"[/I]? Hence it's popularity before music streaming. - Doesn't good product quality ensures a larger future income from a loyal consumer base? - Why do you think minor artist release their work for free on torrenting sites? Because the word 'free' is the free tool of the world's largest marketing strategy, that puts your brand on the world's spotlight, that also increases the amount of people who's seen your work. - Those who love culture will always buy culture, and those who love culture will forever and always create culture. - Couldn't the budget for anti-piracy been invested to create a better product and marketing? - If a business goes bankrupt because there's no supply-n-demand, or that its model is outdated: do they complain, adapt, or move on? - Some people don't like giving money to a company that doesn't respect them nor consumerism; is this the fault of the pirate? - Aren't companies supposed to adapt their business model to ensure the satisfaction of their customers? Why complain on an individual who has invented a car that runs free on water and say [I]"But how will fuel companies get their money now?"[/I] - The more and better service you provide, the more you will get in return; hence the market of major and minor Internet Service Providers. Why try to control and punish the pirates which never works since technology from both sides always progress, and at the same time cause collateral damage to both the market, Internet, and legit consumers. Is it worth it? Is it not the companies responsibilities to improve instead of putting the blame on people, when it's not even proven if they would have bought the product to begin with? I don't like this mindset because it slows development down. All this reminds me about the invention about the printing device, and how the book monopoly in 19th century Brittain tried to abolish the public libraries before it even began, with the reason [I]"No books will ever be written as it takes the food from the mouth of the authors' children"[/I], and since then I guess no book was ever written..? I admit that there's positives and negatives with piracy, but it's an endless fight that will cause nothing but mayhem, and we must adapt and reform instead. [I]Are we ready to criminalize an entire youth generation while society moves further into digitalization each day?[/I] [B]Like I said, there is and could be negative effects:[/B] - The sales impact whenever the un-released product falls into the hands of the individuals before its release date, which affects the income of the premiere (launch-date). Small indie-developers may not get a great start for their company, when their products keeps getting illegally obtained through torrent client(s). A counter-argument to this, is the game markets' lack of playable demos/trials, that lets the consumer try the product before they buy, but does it justify it considering that the individual may or may not buy it afterwards, while owning a complete illegal copy instead of a limited demo copy? [I]"I already have a complete copy, why should I buy it?"[/I], and of course we don't know if the majority thinks like this, but we must considered it just in case (just like everything I wrote in the beginning). This is the part were I partly support Denuvo. - Minor games such as Prison Architect, etc may not be bought after piracy because some can see it as a [I]'One Day Play And Leave'[/I]. Whenever the product has been consumed to its final stage, there may not be a guarantee that the pirate may buy it afterwards, even though he enjoyed it and wishes to contribute to the game development studio. Unfortunately there's no documentations that either proves or disproves this, because it's difficult to create an analysis, which has been tried before. So none of us can be sure of this, and it should therefore depend on the individuality. And of course the pos and cons effect of piracy depends entirely on context if it's about music, games, movies, etc and must be focused independantly. This makes it even more difficult to know what's right and wrong. What any person with technical knowledge can understand, is that society as a whole, is a straggler. Its flexibility is not enough to adapt to today's technology, and therefore we can not use its for our advantage. This model is sustainable for models during the '90s. We must move on, we've waited enough. Despite the topics' lack of documented analyzes, we must rely on individuality itself. There's no way for us to say [I]"That's the truth, because we've proven it"[/I], because there's not enough material to go on, except for the few statistics and theories we have, including several anonymous opinion voting polls that we don't know if they're trustworthy enough. A wise and scientific society relies on the model that is most fresh and beneficial, and switches whenever it becomes outdated. We can not be sure if the legalisation of piracy is the right choice in the future, but right now it outweigh the negative aspect (in my opinion; which isn't a fact). It also punishes individuals with charges that are far worse than crimes of humanity, such as: assault, sexual assault, real physical theft (difference between digital and physical), speeding, and other crimes that threatens human life; why does money have a far higher priority? Where's the ethical morality and principles of human life and its value? [I]What does this say about companies that enforces these methods onto individuals? [/I]- Yes, people will still pirate no matter what. [B]Good reads:[/B] [URL]http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-593-EN-F1-1.PDF[/URL] [URL]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246[/URL] [URL]http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/MPP/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-9-Copyright-and-Creation.pdf[/URL] [URL]https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n1_-_final.pdf[/URL] [URL]https://www.iis.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2016.pdf[/URL] [B](swedish)[/B] [URL]https://torrentfreak.com/artists-make-more-money-in-file-sharing-age-than-before-100914/[/URL] [B]^Connected to above source: Publisher & Creator conflict[/B] [URL]http://www.politico.eu/article/insiders-slam-commissions-copyright-plans/[/URL] [URL]http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Ups_And_Downs_authorised_translation.pdf[/URL] [URL]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml[/URL] [URL]http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2009/06/harvard-study-on-file-sharing/[/URL] [URL]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1835036932.shtml[/URL] Yes I'm a bit of a hypocrite.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;51753299]for real thou why can't devs do what witcher 3 does?[/QUOTE] CDPR did great because they had an amazing game, brand recognition, and glowing reviews. Most games simply aren't on the same level as Witcher 3. Maybe you genuinely feel that only a game as good as Witcher 3 deserves to turn a profit, but an industry in which only the top cream of the crop 1% of developers can turn a profit is not one that will survive. You can say 'piracy is meaningless, look at Witcher 3' and I can say 'piracy destroys developers, look at World of Goo', because the truth is that it affects each game and each company differently. It's extremely short-sighted to look at one of the best games in recent years being successful in spite of piracy and declare that any studio can do the same.

[QUOTE=27X;51754652]Look at the color of your username and say that with a straight face.[/QUOTE] This is a gross generalization that could be easily disproved with a simple look at the few popular threads in the GMF. I challenge you to find a post from me, for example, saying that I've done anything worse (in the sense that we're talking about in the thread) than install a homebrew launcher on my 3DS to play SNES games and Doom since the O3DS allows neither of those natively. [editline]31st January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;51755415]CDPR did great because they had an amazing game, brand recognition, and glowing reviews. Most games simply aren't on the same level as Witcher 3. Maybe you genuinely feel that only a game as good as Witcher 3 deserves to turn a profit, but an industry in which only the top cream of the crop 1% of developers can turn a profit is not one that will survive. You can say 'piracy is meaningless, look at Witcher 3' and I can say 'piracy destroys developers, look at World of Goo', because the truth is that it affects each game and each company differently. It's extremely short-sighted to look at one of the best games in recent years being successful in spite of piracy and declare that any studio can do the same.[/QUOTE] The issue with your argument is that I've played tons of indie games I prefer over World of Goo, and those studios, some of which had sales where their game dropped to $1 and others where they had free giveaways or they straight-up gave keys away to people on TPB while their game was $20, are still around. If World of Goo was more than just a glorified flash game that had a very similar premise to any generic bridge builder, maybe it wouldn't have had such high piracy rates. Of course, that game also suffered from releasing on mobile, a platform rampant with clones and piracy because it's so easy to do, but so did This War of Mine, which coincidentally was the game I was talking about that had keys given away on TPB. Even more coincidentally, it's made up of former CDP members. That game is $20 (which was more expensive than WoG and is a price point that's pretty high up for an indie game), released on many of the same platforms, and the studio is still here and kicking. Better yet, The War of Mine: The Little Ones is free for PS+ members right at this moment. You can't blame piracy for all of a studio's problems.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51755415] You can say 'piracy is meaningless, look at Witcher 3' and I can say 'piracy destroys developers, look at World of Goo', because the truth is that it affects each game and each company differently. It's extremely short-sighted to look at one of the best games in recent years being successful in spite of piracy and declare that any studio can do the same.[/QUOTE] 2D Boy is still around as Tomorrow Corporation though. World of Goo is not worth the $20 that was asked at launch. The $10 it is now is much more reasonable for what the game is.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51755415]CDPR did great because they had an amazing game, brand recognition, and glowing reviews. Most games simply aren't on the same level as Witcher 3. Maybe you genuinely feel that only a game as good as Witcher 3 deserves to turn a profit, but an industry in which only the top cream of the crop 1% of developers can turn a profit is not one that will survive. You can say 'piracy is meaningless, look at Witcher 3' and I can say 'piracy destroys developers, look at World of Goo', because the truth is that it affects each game and each company differently. It's extremely short-sighted to look at one of the best games in recent years being successful in spite of piracy and declare that any studio can do the same.[/QUOTE] I would probably agree with you on the topic of smaller indie games. However, it does seem silly to compare a AAA game to an indie game in terms of piracy.

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51755136]Which statistics? I remember having posted in these kinds of threads about how Spotify and Netflix actually [URL="http://bgr.com/2016/01/21/netflix-downloads-bittorrent-piracy/"]reduces piracy[/URL] and how The Witcher sold some 10 million copies despite having no DRM and arguing that making a better and more affordable service is the best way to kill piracy[/QUOTE] Yes, DRMs such as Netflix, Spotify and Steam improve sales because they make purchases more convenient. I don't think big game studios act on baseless assumptions, they're aware of these things, and stuff like Denuvo works for them. The Witcher isn't really a helpful example here because something like 95% of its sales was through DRM protected services anyways, showing that most people didn't really care about that part. It could've sold equally well without a DRM-free release.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51756209]Yes, DRMs such as Netflix, Spotify and Steam improve sales because they make purchases more convenient. I don't think big game studios act on baseless assumptions, they're aware of these things, and stuff like Denuvo works for them. The Witcher isn't really a helpful example here because something like 95% of its sales was through DRM protected services anyways, showing that most people didn't really care about that part. It could've sold equally well without a DRM-free release.[/QUOTE] And so the argument is: 'Why bother?' If 95% of the sales (no statistics) went through unnamed DRM protected services where most people didn't really care at all (seems like a guess on your part), why bother with DRM? And it doesn't help your case either when you said it could have sold equally well with a DRM service. That just makes it seem even more redundant There's still my previous question. Which statistics? [editline]31st January 2017[/editline] Also, can someone confirm or deny if it's possible to run any of the DRM free Steam games without having Steam opened?

-snip-

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51756402]And so the argument is: 'Why bother?'[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=gokiyono;51756402]There's still my previous question. Which statistics?[/QUOTE] These are questions the big game studios have to answer. Something encourages them to spend lots of money on DRM & anti-tamper solutions for their games, and it's not hard to guess what. Realistically they possess statistics that prove stuff like Denuvo to be valuable enough to pay for, which is why they bother. Would be nice if they released some official numbers on it so that we could see them too, but you'd have to be naive to assume they continue to pay for Denuvo's service if they lose money on it - it's safe to assume they don't. [QUOTE=gokiyono;51756402]If 95% of the sales (no statistics) went through unnamed DRM protected services where most people didn't really care at all (seems like a guess on your part), why bother with DRM?[/quote] Sorry for not sourcing my claims there. I was on my phone and just Googled around for sales on PS4, X1 and Steam, and compared that to all sales in total. It added up to around 95% bought on those platforms, although it could vary somewhat.

I'd just like to say that I'm glad this happened, but please don't pirate RE7. It's a great game and Capcom deserves every penny for their effort.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51756495]These are questions the big game studios have to answer. Something encourages them to spend lots of money on DRM & anti-tamper solutions for their games, and it's not hard to guess what. Realistically they possess statistics that prove stuff like Denuvo to be valuable enough to pay for, which is why they bother. Would be nice if they released some official numbers on it so that we could see them too, but you'd have to be naive to assume they continue to pay for Denuvo's service if they lose money on it - it's safe to assume they don't.[/QUOTE] Lack of education, short sightedness, the decisions being handled by marketing people who speaks in buzzwords and doesn't know better, and so on. There are actually a lot of reason why they might [I]think[/I] having stuff like Denuvo as a good idea. It's not like big companies aren't prone to make mistakes.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51756495]These are questions the big game studios have to answer.[/QUOTE] So in reality you have nothing to back your claims up.

[QUOTE=Monkey pie;51754407]TBH all i see is pirates blaming their piracy tendencies on drm. I think denuvo is neat, it works rather “well” when it first works.[/QUOTE] As a paying customer who has purchased several games running Denuvo, fuck this DRM and all it stands for. [editline]31st January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;51756597]I'd just like to say that I'm glad this happened, but please don't pirate RE7. It's a great game and Capcom deserves every penny for their effort.[/QUOTE] I'll buy the game when Capcom and Sony stop sucking each other's dicks with year-long partial exclusivity deals. As far as I'm concerned the game, as good as it may be, is simply not complete on PC as of yet and thus does not deserve the absurd price of 80€ for the game and all of its promised to-be-released content. And it'll remain incomplete until the exclusivity deal regarding VR is lifted which will be one whole year from now. I want to support a good game. I don't want to support garbage practices like feature exclusivity.

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51756637]Lack of education, short sightedness, the decisions being handled by marketing people who speaks in buzzwords and doesn't know better, and so on. There are actually a lot of reason why they might [I]think[/I] having stuff like Denuvo as a good idea. It's not like big companies aren't prone to make mistakes.[/QUOTE] They wouldn't be making this "mistake" so consistently that we see such software implemented in most AAA games. Businesses can be run by idiots, but even idiots would notice a trending down in sales if DRM was actually a problem. The business analysis teams these companies have will have performed a somewhat reasonable investigation into investing into DRM and anti-tamper, it's safe to assume the software isn't cheap after all and you need to justify damn near everything in a budget when you're working for profit.

[QUOTE=gk99;51756692]So in reality you have nothing to back your claims up.[/QUOTE] That's one way to look at it. Essentially my claims hinge on the assumption that several big game companies are doing this for a reason. If it, somehow, turns out that Denuvo [I]never worked[/I], I'll admit to being wrong - but currently that seems naive to me. It's not the hardest thing in the world to do some statistical analysis of the effectiveness of these solutions, and when Denuvos customers keep returning to them I think that speaks volumes of its actual effectiveness.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51757217]That's one way to look at it. Essentially my claims hinge on the assumption that several big game companies are doing this for a reason. If it, somehow, turns out that Denuvo [I]never worked[/I], I'll admit to being wrong - but currently that seems naive to me. [B]It's not the hardest thing in the world to do some statistical analysis of the effectiveness of these solutions[/B], and when Denuvos customers keep returning to them I think that speaks volumes of its actual effectiveness.[/QUOTE] That's the problem, there's nothing to go on, which is the underlying issue of copyright reform. There's so little to know about this subject that saying anything positive or negative about Denuvo is almost completely worthless, and it's nothing but assumptions. I've been politically engaged in copyright infringement and reform for almost six years now with the Swedish party (beware I'm focusing on the music & film industry), and there's still an entire grey area that fill its entire. The one side gives a book that says this, and the other side gives a book that says otherwise. All we find is more questions to look into, because the amount of factors is just too many to find a single solution. [B]An example of why statistics in matters of piracy is faulty (at the moment):[/B] The side who stood against piracy collected 100 torrent sides amount of downloads on one specific product, and compared it to the amount of sales they received. 100,000 legit sales 10,000 pirated copies The anti-piracy side sees those 10,000 as loss of sales, even though there's not a single way (so far) to determine if those who pirated that product wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Even if piracy was not possible, would they still bought it for that price since people always pay things they seem worthy their money? Even if those 10,000 pirated copies would actually have been bought legit or not, we still don't know that for sure, and therefore we can't use it for statistical analysis except for assumptions. --- The side who supported piracy saw it from a marketing perspective. By spreading that product worldwide it was reaching a larger/open and more popular platform that increased the amount of people that actually bought it afterwards, and found trust in their current and future products. 100,000 legit sales 10,000 pirated copies +5,000 legit sales by the effect of marketing +10,000 larger future fan base Like I said before, there's no way to tell if these numbers are correct, because we don't know if they would've bought it even though they liked the product and its company. [I]So how can we know if any of those numbers was because of Denuvo's interaction or not? [/I]Except for launch dates that affects all products differently. It's kind of like interviewing a drunk vodka alcoholic if they can drive or not, while the other side has their own drunk whiskey alcoholic that slurs something else.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51757217]That's one way to look at it. Essentially my claims hinge on the assumption that several big game companies are doing this for a reason. If it, somehow, turns out that Denuvo [I]never worked[/I], I'll admit to being wrong - but currently that seems naive to me. It's not the hardest thing in the world to do some statistical analysis of the effectiveness of these solutions, and when Denuvos customers keep returning to them I think that speaks volumes of its actual effectiveness.[/QUOTE] Question, how exactly would you do statistical analysis on the effectiveness of DRM? We don't live in a world where you can release a game with DRM, record results, turn back time, release it without DRM, record the results, compare and contrast, and pick the more effective method. Any analysis done would be pointless, because it's all based on entirely different games. Unless we're talking about shit like sports games where they're essentially the same from year to year, any jump or decline in sales could be due to a [I]multitude[/I] of factors, and I have very, very little reason to believe that sports games ever have a massive jump or decline in sales. I mean shit, let's take Call of Duty for example. One comes out a year, for a while they were at a high point breaking records every year, but now we're down the the lowest in a long while. Why? Could be the setting, could be the new gameplay from the setting, could be people getting tired of playing the game, people being bitter and wary of CoD's implementation of VAC after MW2 banned people for things like weapon skins, people tired of buying a new game every year, people not trusting Infinity Ward after CoD: Ghosts and MW3, people not trusting Activision because of their business practices, people playing Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2 instead since they all released at the same time, and the list could go on and on if I wanted to continue it. Hell, if I wanted to, I could throw "the series started forcing DRM on you after World at War" in there, too. Now, which of these, or which combination of them, is causing the decline, and what do you change to prevent the decline from continuing? If you proposed an experiment like this where practically everything changes on every yearly trial the scientific community would laugh you into obscurity.

all drm is bad /bandwagon

[QUOTE=The bird Man;51757443]The side who supported piracy saw it from a marketing perspective.[/QUOTE] You've said this both in this current post and the last one without really considering the implications. For example, you cite the example of musicians releasing their music for free to gain exposure as a marketing trick, without mentioning that the traditional music sales industry has crashed and burned as a result of piracy. For the most part, they're not releasing their music for free so people buy the album, they're releasing music for free either as a hobby or so they can sell merchandise, concerts, and all the other alternative revenue streams that actually earn money. So I don't buy the 'piracy is ok because it's marketing' when it's applied to games, because you aren't earning anything if the pirates don't actually subsequently buy your game. That 'open and more popular platform', ie torrent sites, doesn't earn money or translate to sales either. You market by providing a product for free, and then another that has to be paid for. You do [I]not[/I] market by providing a product for free, and then providing every other product for free too. There's no way to quantify exactly how many pirated copies are actually lost sales, but I would bet every dollar in my possession that it's greater than the number of sales that are a result of piracy. And that's not even touching on the bewildering diversity of excuses that gamers have to justify not paying for a game even when they like it. [QUOTE=gk99;51757805]Question, how exactly would you do statistical analysis on the effectiveness of DRM? [/QUOTE] This is why there are people called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary"]actuaries[/URL] who have frighteningly complex market models to do exactly this kind of statistical analysis. Every major publisher has them and they're the ones making a market case for DRM, all your post is saying is basically 'insurance is hard'. Do you believe that major publishers invest millions of dollars in developing and implementing DRM, or major studios adopt systems like Denuvo that take a cut of their profits, with absolutely no basis to think that it's worth the cost?

[QUOTE=catbarf;51760190]You've said this both in this current post and the last one without really considering the implications. For example, you cite the example of musicians releasing their music for free to gain exposure as a marketing trick, without mentioning that the traditional music sales industry has crashed and burned as a result of piracy. For the most part, they're not releasing their music for free so people buy the album, they're releasing music for free either as a hobby or so they can sell merchandise, concerts, and all the other alternative revenue streams that actually earn money.[/QUOTE] Like I've said plenty of times, all piracy differs from context such as games, films, music, etc. I won't fight you on the other stuff since it's a very large grey area as I reckon. But I do like to talk about what I quoted from you. I posted two sources about this, and by product I'm not talking specifically about albums. Anyone who's done research about this topic is well aware that publishers take most of the earnings from digital and physical sales, while concerts/tours, merchandise, etc are the creator's true income, which people also invest more in than ever before. I've also mentioned in several ways that outdated market models haven't adapted to the new technology that has opened a far more wide and different platform, which is also included in the sources (they drown because they don't swim). There's been hundred types of stores that has been closed due to how society moves on, this is nothing but another old piece of technological history, once again. It has happened before, and will continue to happen as long as we move forward. A new platform takes it place, and the old one either dies out or adapt. It's like complaining that Netflix is slowly killing the sales of DVDs/Blu-Rays that ruins stores such as the Swedish [I]Hemmakväll[/I] store, but the only difference is that they adapted to the consumers' digitalized needs and created a whole new market. If you mean streaming services such as Spotify as alternative revenue streams, you should also be aware that it's barely a direct income, even for more popular musicians. This marketing 'trick' (that is pretty fundamentally common in different contexts), puts your brand in spotlight, just like bad commercials that still turns your brand into a renowned one. Why wouldn't this 'trick' increase the amount of followers for concerts? Why do people who love musical culture still buy old LP discs, and follows tours even though they can listen at it at home? They earn more than they've ever done in history, if you've read the sources, plus all studies (Global Web Index for example) that says using these new digital platforms has decreased the amount of piracy due to customer satisfactory, you should know that spreading your work increases sales in other areas, such as concerts that provides their living, because why do you think they do it their entire life constantly? Hell, there's even major musicians who's admitted to this, and their music company gave them a lot of shit for it because it threatens their way to milk their clients. [QUOTE=catbarf;51760190][B]There's no way to quantify exactly how many pirated copies are actually lost sales, but I would bet every dollar in my possession that it's greater than the number of sales that are a result of piracy[/B]. And that's not even touching on the bewildering diversity of excuses that gamers have to justify not paying for a game even when they like it.[/QUOTE] Even though we have no material that proves this, I actually agree that this may be true. Of course it's very various, but most cases probably yes. [QUOTE=catbarf;51760190]So I don't buy the 'piracy is ok because it's marketing' when it's applied to games, because you aren't earning anything if the pirates don't actually subsequently buy your game. That 'open and more popular platform', ie torrent sites, doesn't earn money or translate to sales either. You market by providing a product for free, and then another that has to be paid for. You do [I]not market by providing a product for free, and then providing every other product for free too.[/I][/QUOTE] This why I support and don't support piracy. This is not just something you can say because that's what your hearth tells you what's right and wrong. The only confirmed way to decrease (not stop) piracy is fulfilling the satisfactory of the customers. Provide a better, equally or closer quality of service than what piracy does. There's no way for you, me or anyone else to stop them from doing what they think is right, no matter if their reasons are legit or not; you can not force people to buy what they don't feel is worthy their coin. People contribute to what they like, and when they can with certain priority - or other thousands of factors that makes us unable to determine the real cause and effect. One thing I do question myself a lot is: Would people start paying for games if piracy was not possible? Would the sales increase or stay the same? Are these companies wasting all their money on protection that really do something or not? The hard truth I believe in when it comes to piracy, is that someone will lose. But a at least there would be more positive outcomes than negatives, and that is progress so far. We won't find an answer that fills all sides needs, and trust me, there's more than two sides on this. Like I've said before, it's up to each individual. Sorry if I haven't explained or read properly, I'm very stressed and my anxiety is killing me atm.