But removing Denuvo DRM after 12 weeks ‘causes zero mean total revenue loss.’
I wish I could access this study. From the summary alone I couldn’t tell how one would compare Denuvo vs non Denuvo, when only large publisher use Denuvo, which are more likely to be mainstream and more known and therefore more in total pirated compared to an indie title. How would one measure that a DRM is preventing this revenue loss? We barely have two exactly similar games release at the same time. Gaming is fluctuating, game scores are and therefore the sold numbers, some are brand loyal while for others it counts less etc. How has anyone found a way to calculate that? Some publisher are much more likely to use Denuvo but are also more likely to be pirated because their game releases are much more likely to be buggy, boring or mtx infested.
Paper (proton drive file): https://drive.proton.me/urls/Z6DPGQCZ0M#GxZ6dDb2oV5W
Credit to @aldalire@lemmy.dbzer0.com for sharing.
In my case they’re facing a 100% revenue reduction regardless of when (or whether) it’s cracked.
I’m never going to buy denuvo infested malware, and developers and publishers who try to pull this shit go straight into the blacklist.
I won’t buy games with Denuvo, wonder how much it hurts sales overall by just being there.
I love GOG for its DRM-free games. But still, keeping Denuvo for 12 weeks feels like a great compromise.
As long as their DRM have a performance penalty it’s not a solution. It’s just a way to punish paying customers and discourage potential customers.
If Denuvo being cracked leads to a measurable and meaningful decrease in revenue, that suggests that enough people would be willing to buy the game even with Denuvo.
When people start speaking with their wallets and stop buying games with Denuvo DRM, then it’d make sense to not have Denuvo. If it’s making a company more money to include it, I can’t blame them for including it during their launch window.
I seldom buy games that were released within the last 12 weeks, so if they removed Denuvo DRM by then, I can’t really complain (at least on my own behalf).
This. Any time paying customers get treated worse than pirates, they’re only incentivised to pirate next time. It absolutely blows my mind that corpos seem incapable of figuring that out.
As much as people don’t want to hear this, it’s a case of the Berlin Wall.
EVERYBODY hated the Berlin wall. If the soviets wanted East Germans to stay in their hypothetical borders, then they should make living environments that encourage people to WANT to be there.
Except they didn’t. They built a wall, and made it impossible to pass. And guess what? The amount of people leaving their country went from an alarming high number of escapees, to near zero. It may have been unpopular, but it was effective.
Now, with the DRM. If they can make an effective DRM that kills piracy, they’ll make more money by preventing piracy than they’ll lose from non-sales protests.
Unpopular, but effective. That’s their logic. And the amount of people not buying in protest is miniscule.
It’s like me protesting the Cleveland Browns until 2027. I don’t appriciate a rapist being on our team. However, everybody else wants him to have a great season. They still spend their money on NFL packages, and go to games, and buy merch. ME not spending a dime in protest only works if the majority do it as well. Which isn’t the case, sadly.
So until the majority protest DRM games, the DRM will be unpopular, but effective.
