Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

Allow me to clarify what I meant by that: I didn't mean to imply that stores (Digital fronts or otherwise) are unable to thrive or compete. Thankfully, most people understand that Piracy is the same as theft in most cases.

What I meant is that most people who do pirate do so because they want to play the game without paying for it. Someone who is set on playing a game for free is not going to be persuaded to pay 60$ just because it's slightly more convenient to do so in a digital storefront.

Thats not really what you said... but either way, history speaks for itself. PC gaming was in a terrible postion at the time and digital stores did manage to revitalize it.
Supply was always a huge issue back then, i speak that as someone who would keep having trouble finding games i wanted.

 

[Rykan]

By the same token a person that intends to pirate a game because it's free isn't going to be speding 60$ just because it's unpiratable.

This is a weird take. Someone who is unable to pirate the game for free is more likely to spend 60$ for a purchase (or even wait for a sale/price decrease) because the only alternative is to not play the game at all. Just because people pick the illegal free option doesn't mean that they wouldn't pick the alternative if you take the illegal option away from them.

I'm not saying it's 1:1, but it's absurd to claim that removing/hampering piracy wouldn't translate to more sales.

It's ridiculous to say it's not a service issue, go back 20 years and look at the landscape of PC gaming.

Want to buy a game? Better hope a retailer has it available around you, or you have enough trust to buy it from a random retailer online and handle all the logistics of shipping it around, don't hope you get that anytime soon.
Want to play the game on multiple PCs or your laptop? Carry around a massive stack of CDs because you need them for DRM checks.
And update was released? How would you know you weren't warned, good luck getting it at 10KB/s because the publisher cheaped out on the ftp host for the patch.

People took it as undeniable fact because it is an undeniable fact, PC gaming is more accessible and readily available. The service improved and PC sales are on an all time high, funny how that works. But it's not a service issue, no, the sales just magically went up.

I'm not arguing against the fact that PC gaming has become much more accessible. What I am saying is that it hasn't led to a decrease in piracy. At least, not in any significant capacity. Pricing is the motivator, not service.

Back when the first CD based systems came out, Piracy was a huge concern. So much so that it was a primary motivator for Nintendo to stick with Cartridges for the Nintendo 64 and to have the smaller disks for the Nintendo Gamecube. Pirating on systems like the PS one was super easy. All it took was a small mod that was fairly easy to install, and you were good to go. Everyone I knew that had a PS one had it modded. Eventually, mods weren't even necessary anymore to play pirated games. PS1 piracy was rampant.

Now look at today's consoles. Piracy on modern consoles is almost nonexistent. Getting pirated games to run is difficult and complicated, and if you mod it, your system will most likely get banned. That wasn't because console gaming suddenly got more convenient: It's because the barriers for piracy became too high to make it worth the hassle, if it's even possible at all.

Another poster in this thread used Anime as an example. Anime & Manga is more accessible than ever before, yet piracy for both Anime and Manga is higher than it's ever been before. It's the same for movies and TV shows: It's now more convenient than ever before to Watch TV. You literally just open the APP on your hardware of choice and stream it. Yet, Piracy has remained high and is actually on the rise.

PC gaming sales have increased because the gaming industry in genera has increased in size. Not because of a reduction in Piracy.

Thats not really what you said... but either way, history speaks for itself. PC gaming was in a terrible postion at the time and digital stores did manage to revitalize it.
Supply was always a huge issue back then, i speak that as someone who would keep having trouble finding games i wanted.

It is exactly what I've said.

There is no service that can compete with free. A person intending to pirate a new release for free isn't going to be persuaded just because you made spending 60$ slightly more convenient.

Again, I'm not arguing against the fact that Digital Stores has an enormously positive effect on the accessibility and PC gaming in general. I am dismissing that it reduced piracy in any meaningful way.

 

[Shubh_C63]

Regional pricing is definitely way more effective way of encouraging people to not pirate. But Denuvo works in converting ateast few numbers when you stop them for 3-6 months or more.

wait, steam overlay is bad? oh boy

Its not bad but it has been known to impact performance in some games. Xbox Game bar is worse.
I assume steam thing were usually patched quickly.

 

[SomeGit]

This is a weird take. Someone who is unable to pirate the game for free is more likely to spend 60$ for a purchase (or even wait for a sale/price decrease) because the only alternative is to not play the game at all. Just because people pick the illegal free option doesn't mean that they wouldn't pick the alternative if you take the illegal option away from them.

I'm not saying it's 1:1, but it's absurd to claim that removing/hampering piracy wouldn't translate to more sales.

It's not a weird take, the people that are financially motivated to pirate likely won't shell out 60$ just because it's uncrackable, they won't simply play the game.
Look at HL, it's been cracked already have the PC game sales fell off a cliff? No, because the majority of pirates likely weren't going to buy it in the first place.

There hasn't been a Denuvo uncracked game that showed significant rise in sales over an equivelent non-Denuvo title.

I'm not arguing against the fact that PC gaming has become much more accessible. What I am saying is that it hasn't led to a decrease in piracy. At least, not in any significant capacity. Pricing is the motivator, not service.

It has led to a significant reduction in piracy. Piracy in PC games is a fraction of what it was 20 years ago.
Either you aren't familiar with the PC gaming scene or you are completely unaware in general.

Back when the first CD based systems came out, Piracy was a huge concern. So much so that it was a primary motivator for Nintendo to stick with Cartridges for the Nintendo 64 and to have the smaller disks for the Nintendo Gamecube. Pirating on systems like the PS one was super easy. All it took was a small mod that was fairly easy to install, and you were good to go. Everyone I knew that had a PS one had it modded. Eventually, mods weren't even necessary anymore to play pirated games. PS1 piracy was rampant.

Now look at today's consoles. Piracy on modern consoles is almost nonexistent. Getting pirated games to run is difficult and complicated, and if you mod it, your system will most likely get banned. That wasn't because console gaming suddenly got more convenient: It's because the barriers for piracy became too high to make it worth the hassle, if it's even possible at all.

And yet PS1 has a significatly better attach rate than the N64. It was such a huge concern that they went with regular discs for Wii and Wii U, both of which have better attach rate than the N64.
Sure, piracy was a problem, but I doubt a unmoddable PS1 would translate into significant better sales. It certainly didn't for the N64.

The discussion is about PC piracy but it's very possible on Switch and PS4, hell it's even easier now since both can be modded without any hardware modifications at all and you can just google rom for Switch easily. Banning or innability to play online is something that also happened 20 years ago. Didn't mean much, people would still pirate. If the problem is financial why would a pirate care? Hell it's not like Switch Online is even that big of a motivator.
Hell, Xbox One the only unmoddable platform at the moment has the lowest attach rate of all, even if we go back to before Game Pass existed.

Another poster in this thread used Anime as an example. Anime & Manga is more accessible than ever before, yet piracy for both Anime and Manga is higher than it's ever been before.
It's the same for movies and TV shows: It's now more convenient than ever before to Watch TV. You literally just open the APP on your hardware of choice and stream it. Yet, Piracy has remained high and is actually on the rise.

Do you have data that proves that?

Anime and Manga I can see, but what that gets translated day to day with Japan releases is still just a small subset of what gets released overall. And this is just accounting for english speaking countries and more specifically the US, if you go outside the US availability drops like a rock. Movies and TV shows maybe on the rise now because of the ridiculous amount of streaming services, but I bet it's still lower than what it was before Netflix and et all came along.

PC gaming sales have increased because the gaming industry in genera has increased in size. Not because of a reduction in Piracy.

The amount of growth in PC gaming goes beyond that, piracy is relatively lower to what it was 20 years ago. Talk to anyone that games on PC, it's not even comparable especially when you step outside of the US.

 

[Rykan]

It's not a weird take, the people that are financially motivated to pirate likely won't shell out 60$ just because it's uncrackable, they won't simply play the game.
Look at HL, it's been cracked already have the PC game sales fell off a cliff? No, because the majority of pirates likely weren't going to buy it in the first place.

It is a weird take. It is utterly insane to argue that there are no people who would purchase the game if you take the free illegal option away from them. If that was true, then the Anti Piracy business and practices wouldn't exist because there would be no point for them.

Like hypothetically: Let's say all forms of piracy become impossible. Do you honestly think all of those people would outright stop playing games all together?

Piracy leads to a loss in sales. It doesn't mean that games aren't selling despite of piracy. The fact that Hogwarts Legacy is selling well doesn't mean that there aren't lost sales due to piracy.

There hasn't been a Denuvo uncracked game that showed



It has led to a significant reduction in piracy. Piracy in PC games is a fraction of what it was 20 years ago.
Either you aren't familiar with the PC gaming scene or you are completely

Based on which Data? Certainly not based on a reduction in anti piracy measures, which are as prevalent as ever.

And yet PS1 has a significatly better attach rate than the N64. It was such a huge concern that they went with regular discs for Wii and Wii U, both of which have better attach rate than the N64.
Sure, piracy was a problem, but I doubt a unmoddable PS1 would translate into significant better sales. It certainly didn't for the N64.

The Playstation 1 had a much larger library of games and the games were significantly cheaper precisely because it went with a CD format instead of cartridges. You're continuing with the fallacy that a system being successful means there is no loss in sales due to piracy. That's simply not how any of this works.

The discussion is about PC piracy but it's very possible on Switch and PS4, hell it's even easier now since both can be modded without any hardware modifications at all. Banning or innability to play online is something that also happened 20 years ago.
Didn't mean much, people would still pirate. If the problem is financial why would a pirate care?

It's nowhere near as easy as you make it seem on a PS4. How "Crackable" it is depends entirely on the firmware of the PS4 and many games wouldn't even work at all. You could get banned from playing online when you use a cracked copy of a game on a PC but ONLY for that particular game. If you mod your PS4, your entire system will be banned from accessing any online functionality of PSN, including online play for ANY of your games. Besides, PS4 is a last gen system now. Piracy on PS5 and XSX is virtually nonexistent.

It's not really, Anime and Manga that gets translated day to day with Japan releases is still just a small subset of what gets released overall. And this is just accounting for english speaking countries and more specifically the US, if you go outside the US availability drops like a rock.

Sure, but the point remains that an increased amount of service/availability has not led to a decrease in piracy.

Do you have data that proves that?
It might be on the rise because of the ridiculous amount of streaming services, but I bet it's still lower than what it was before Netflix came along.

Sure

The amount of growth in PC gaming goes beyond that, piracy is relatively lower to what it was 20 years ago. Talk to anyone that games on PC, it's not even comparable.

Based on what? The amount of Anti Piracy measures suggests otherwise.

 

[SomeGit]

It is a weird take. It is utterly insane to argue that there are no people who would purchase the game if you take the free illegal option away from them. If that was true, then the Anti Piracy business and practices wouldn't exist because there would be no point for them.
Piracy leads to a loss in sales. It doesn't mean that games aren't selling despite of piracy. The fact that Hogwarts Legacy is selling well doesn't mean that there aren't lost sales due to piracy.

I'm not arguing that "no people" would purchase the game, I'm arguing that "no signficant amount of people" would.
I even said: "No, because the majority of pirates likely weren't going to buy it in the first place."

It's hard to quantify how much, but it's not a significant amount, otherwise sales of cracked games would fall off a cliff because the free version became available, and for games like Cyberpunk which were DRM free on day on torrent sites that would have been disaster for their sales, right? Since that doesn't happen, those lost sales probably aren't really worth bothering amount.

Based on which Data? Certainly not based on a reduction in anti piracy measures, which are as prevalent as ever.
(...)

Based on what? The amount of Anti Piracy measures suggests otherwise.

The vast vast majority of retail PC game in the 00s shipped with DRM like SecuROM, StarForce or some variation of it, given that Denuvo is comparatively only on a small subset of games, that Steam DRM isn't even on most Steam games and you have an online shop that sells day 1 modern titles PC DRM free games maybe it is based on a reduction of anti piracy measures. DRM was much worse in the 00s.

Based on what? The amount of games releasing day to day with the console versions, the reduction in console only exclusives, when even MS and Sony are starting to release on PC, when Epic's Tim Sweaney or Ubisoft went from saying it was worthless to release on PC to setting up their own PC store. Talk to any PC gamer for the 00s and ask them how much better the situation is. None of this would have happen if the absurd piracy numbers from the 00s were still the same as they are today.

The Playstation 1 had a much larger library of games and the games were significantly cheaper precisely because it went with a CD format instead of cartridges. You're continuing with the fallacy that a system being successful means there is no loss in sales due to piracy. That's simply not how any of this works.

And you continue with the falacy that the loss in sales is significant, yet of all the infamous "cracked" consoles only the PSP showed any abnormal drop in attach rate.
If PS1 games were more readily available, cheaper and produced by more third parties, maybe the N64's problem had a service problem, right? Hence the lower sales of software?

It's nowhere near as easy as you make it seem on a PS4. How "Crackable" it is depends entirely on the firmware of the PS4 and many games wouldn't even work at all. You could get banned from playing online when you use a cracked copy of a game on a PC but ONLY for that particular game. If you mod your PS4, your entire system will be banned from accessing any online functionality of PSN, including online play for ANY of your games. Besides, PS4 is a last gen system now. Piracy on PS5 and XSX is virtually nonexistent.

It's relatively easy yes, if you want it you can easily get a modded PS4 today. I still don't understand why you keep bringing online, yes you get banned but if you are financially motivated to pirate why would that bother you? You weren't going to be paying for games in the first place much less for a PSN subscription. If the problem is only financial and not related to service, then being banned shouldn't matter.

Of course PS5 and XSX is virtually nonexistent because they are uncracked at the moment, but that is usually the case, hell even affordable PS1 modchips only started to appear in 97/98.
And PS4 is last gen, but Switch is still Nintendo primary system.

Sure, but the point remains that an increased amount of service/availability has not led to a decrease in piracy.

It decreased the relation between legal consuption and piracy, legal consuption might as well be 0% in the 00s, outside Narutos and Dragon Balls. The piracy numbers are still high, because day to day availability is still very low.
Put out every anime and manga day to day, translated and you'll see that number drop, how is that not a service problem?

Sure

That's not what I asked.
You said "Yet, Piracy has remained high and is actually on the rise."
I even consided that it may be on the rise YoY, my point was has is actually remained high?
Is piracy post Netflix et all actually comparable to what it was before? Do you have that data?

Hell even your own source says this

Over the past two decades, this audience has been largely dismissed as not valuable, niche and irrelevant. This is somewhat understandable because the very act of watching a film on a piracy website means it is obtained illegally and for free. However, many studies and surveys have found a correlation between digital piracy and increased spending on legal content.

This is because many people who pirate content are avid consumers of media.
They turn to piracy to access content that is not available in their region or is not affordable at the time, but this audience will still spend significant sums on legal content when given the opportunity.

Gee man, lack of availability? Will spend sums of legal content? That sure sounds like a service issue to me!

 

[Rykan]

I'm not arguing that "no people" would purchase the game, I'm arguing that "no signficant amount of people" would.
I even said: "No, because the majority of pirates likely weren't going to buy it in the first place."

It's hard to quantify how much, but it's not a significant amount, otherwise sales of cracked games would fall off a cliff because the free version became available, and for games like Cyberpunk which were DRM free on day on torrent sites that would have been disaster for their sales, right? Since that doesn't happen, those lost sales probably aren't really worth bothering amount.

No it wouldn't and i'm surprised that you keep insisting on this logical fallacy. The fact that a game is successful despite piracy does not mean that there isn't a significant loss in sales. These extreme claims simply don't help your argument.

The fact of the matter is that anti piracy measures continue to be developed and invested in by a large amount of publishers. Clearly they are of the opinion that it actually is a fairly significant amount to the point that they are willing to invest and develop into these measures. I'd love to know on which basis you claim that it's not a significant amount.

The vast vast majority of retail PC game in the 00s shipped with DRM like SecuROM, StarForce or some variation of it, given that Denuvo is comparatively only on a small subset of games, that Steam DRM isn't even on most Steam games and you have an online shop that sells day 1 modern titles PC DRM free games maybe it is based on a reduction of anti piracy measures. DRM was much worse in the 00s.

Based on what? The amount of games releasing day to day with the console versions, the reduction in console only exclusives, when even MS and Sony are starting to release on PC, when Epic's Tim Sweaney or Ubisoft went from saying it was worthless to release on PC to setting up their own PC store. Talk to any PC gamer for the 00s and ask them how much better the situation is. None of this would have happen if the absurd piracy numbers from the 00s were still the same as they are today.

None of this supports your argument in the slightest.

The increase of PC gaming is due to improvements to PC gaming as a whole. PC gaming has become more accessible, easier to develop for, and more affordable. The rising development costs of gaming also makes multiplatform development nearly a necessity, and porting games over is easier than it ever was before. All of this has lead to continued growth for the PC as a gaming platform. But that's not what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is whether the increase in service such as online stores has convinced pirates to spend 60$ instead of 0$ for the added convenience.

And you continue with the falacy that the loss in sales is significant, yet of all the infamous "cracked" consoles only the PSP showed any abnormal drop in attach rate.
If PS1 games were more readily available, cheaper and produced by more third parties, maybe the N64's problem had a service problem, right? Hence the lower sales of software?

On what basis do you make the claim that it is not significant? The fact that a system or game sells well is not at all evidence that piracy effects isn't significant. You cannot directly compare the PS1 to the N64 because they had completely different libraries and different price points.

It's relatively easy yes, if you want it you can easily get a modded PS4 today. I still don't understand why you keep bringing online, yes you get banned but if you are financially motivated to pirate why would that bother you? You weren't going to be paying for games in the first place much less for a PSN subscription. If the problem is only financial and not related to service, then being banned shouldn't matter.

Of course PS5 and XSX is virtually nonexistent because they are uncracked at the moment, but that is usually the case, hell even affordable PS1 modchips only started to appear in 97/98.
And PS4 is last gen, but Switch is still Nintendo primary system.

You keep making these assumptions because everything is the extreme end for you. People prefer to download a game illegally instead of paying 60$ for it? They would never pay for the game anyway. No online capabilities if you mod a console to play pirated games? People who pirate game wouldn't pay for online anyway. It's Bizarre.

Playstation network is like 60$ for 1 year. Just because a person doesn't want to pay 60$ PER GAME doesn't mean he's not willing to spend 60$ for an entire year of online play. Besides that, A lot of the most popular online games are actually Free to Play games and don't require a PSN subscription.

It decreased the relation between legal consuption and piracy, legal consuption might as well be 0% in the 00s, outside Narutos and Dragon Balls. The piracy numbers are still high, because day to day availability is still very low.
Put out every anime and manga day to day, translated and you'll see that number drop, how is that not a service problem?

Crunchyroll hosts most of the most popular Anime and has Simulcast for a lot of it shows. Even if you were to argue that it's not ideal yet, The available for watching Anime legally has increased drastically over the years. There should at least see a decrease in piracy numbers. Instead, the opposite is happening: Regardless of availability becoming better, piracy numbers keep rising.

That's not what I asked.
You said "Yet, Piracy has remained high and is actually on the rise."
I even consided that it may be on the rise YoY, my point was has is actually remained high?
Is piracy post Netflix et all actually comparable to what it was before? Do you have that data?

Is this what you're looking for?

 

[SomeGit]

No it wouldn't and i'm surprised that you keep insisting on this logical fallacy. The fact that a game is successful despite piracy does not mean that there isn't a significant loss in sales. These extreme claims simply don't help your argument.

The fact of the matter is that anti piracy measures continue to be developed and invested in by a large amount of publishers. Clearly they are of the opinion that it actually is a fairly significant amount to the point that they are willing to invest and develop into these measures. I'd love to know on which basis you claim that it's not a significant amount.

What logical fallacy? If piracy were such a big problem then surely you'd see the impact on sales when a game was cracked. It's not an extreme claim, an extreme claim its too say that pirate will just buy the game if uncracked with no data to back that up. Anti piracy measures are basically just Denuvo at this point, and again ask any PC gamer from the 00s about StarForce, SecuROM, TAGES, etc. In the 00s there were more DRM games that what you get now, which is basically just Denuvo at this point.

You want a logical fallacy? How about appeal to authority? The publishers are doing this so surely they must be right!

None of this supports your argument in the slightest.

The increase of PC gaming is due to improvements to PC gaming as a whole. PC gaming has become more accessible, easier to develop for, and more affordable. The rising development costs of gaming also makes multiplatform development nearly a necessity, and porting games over is easier than it ever was before. All of this has lead to continued growth for the PC as a gaming platform. But that's not what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is whether the increase in service such as online stores has convinced pirates to spend 60$ instead of 0$ for the added convenience.

Right those improvements to PC gaming and its sales never came from actually better services? It just happen at the same time that Steam took off, holy mother of coincidences.
Even though multiplatform engines (like UE2 and Renderware) and high level API date back years when PC gaming was on a decline. Sure man, keep circling around the obvious, I'm sure the rising cost of game developement would make publishers very happy to put their game is a piracy infested PC landscape of the 00s. There wasn't any catalist that actually pushed PC game sales up? Nothing major that shifted the landscape of PC Gaming from 2008-2013? You can't think of anything?

On what basis do you make the claim that it is not significant? The fact that a system or game sells well is not at all evidence that piracy effects isn't significant. You cannot directly compare the PS1 to the N64 because they had completely different libraries and different price points.

They were out at the same time with the same price point for the 2 consoles, if third parties and consumers choose one over the other to keep insisting that piracy had any major impact is ridiculous.
Maybe the major impact was the choice of carts over discs, like a service issue? What other conclusion can you draw from this?

Yes, piracy has significant impact on sales that's why you see pratically no change in the attach rate compared to other systems...

You keep making these assumptions because everything is the extreme end for you. People prefer to download a game illegally instead of paying 60$ for it? They would never pay for the game anyway. No online capabilities if you mod a console to play pirated games? People who pirate game wouldn't pay for online anyway. It's Bizarre.

Playstation network is like 60$ for 1 year. Just because a person doesn't want to pay 60$ PER GAME doesn't mean he's not willing to spend 60$ for an entire year of online play. Besides that, A lot of the most popular online games are actually Free to Play games and don't require a PSN subscription.

Extreme like saying that someone will go from spending 0 to 60, or even avoid pirating multiple games so that they can play an F2P game.... Cmon dude. Someone who's financially motivated to pirate will surely avoid pirating multiple 60$ games just to be able to pay for a subscription. That makes sense to you, or maybe the motivation to avoid piracy isn't financial?

Crunchyroll hosts most of the most popular Anime and has Simulcast for a lot of it shows. Even if you were to argue that it's not ideal yet, The available for watching Anime legally has increased drastically over the years. There should at least see a decrease in piracy numbers. Instead, the opposite is happening: Regardless of availability becoming better, piracy numbers keep rising.

It's still just a subset of all anime, for a limited amount of regions. Not even most of Europe has Simulcast, much less in their native language. Step out the bubble of the US.

Is this what you're looking for?

This is the second source in a row you've posted without reading.
Try to do more than just googling and posting the first link, this is the original source from that graph:

Cybersecurity | IBC365

Strengthen cybersecurity for digital media and content protection. Prevent unauthorized access, safeguard intellectual property, and defend against cyber threats with robust security measures for media industries.

www.ibc.org

"Legitimate revenues from OTT TV episodes and movie overtook online piracy losses as far back as 2013. The gap between the two measures is widening."

 

[Rykan]

What logical fallacy? If piracy were such a big problem then surely you'd see the impact on sales when a game was cracked. It's not an extreme claim, an extreme claim its too say that pirate will just buy the game if uncracked with no data to back that up. Anti piracy measures are basically just Denuvo at this point, and again ask any PC gamer from the 00s about StarForce, SecuROM, TAGES, etc. In the 00s there were more DRM games that what you get now, which is basically just Denuvo at this point.

You want a logical fallacy? How about appeal to authority? The publishers are doing this so surely they must be right!

You wouldn't see the impact on sales when a game was cracked. Do you know why? Because you don't have access to such detailed sales data. Do you know who does have access to exact sales data? The publishers that continue to invest enormous amount of funding to develop and license anti piracy software because they do have data that suggests they are losing a substantial enough amount of sales to piracy to justify those investments.

An appeal to Authority? Don't kid yourself. You have no insider knowledge about this subject. No invested interest either. You're desperately trying to put your own opinion on the same level as publishers which have vastly more experience and data about this subject than you do. The idea that all of the publishers are wrong and simply wasting money while you, who unironically uses arguments such as :"Well sales are high so that means Piracy isn't causing a significant amount of lost sales", has this all figured out is simply laughable.

Right those improvements to PC gaming and its sales never came from actually better services? It just happen at the same time that Steam took off, holy mother of coincidences.
Even though multiplatform engines (like UE2 and Renderware) and high level API date back years when PC gaming was on a decline. Sure man, keep circling around the obvious, I'm sure the rising cost of game developement would make publishers very happy to put their game is a piracy infested PC landscape of the 00s.

That's literally what I'm saying. Read again. Properly this time, please.

They were out at the same time with the same price point, if third parties and consumers choose one over the other to keep insisting that piracy had any major impact is ridiculous.
Maybe the major impact was the choice of carts over discs, like a service issue? What other conclusion can you draw from this?

Well, the first and foremost conclusion is that you seem to be unaware of the price difference between the N64 and the PSone. The Nintendo 64 and PSone had comparable hardware prices, but the software prices were significantly different. Nintendo 64 games were much more expensive than PSone games.

The point is that you can't just compare the PSone to Nintendo 64, point out that the software attachment rate was higher for the PSone and then conclude that must mean that there was no significant loss in sales due to piracy. They don't share the same software library, they don't share the same software prices and they arguably don't target the same audience either. There's far to many variables to draw that conclusion

Extreme like saying that someone will go from spending 0 to 60, or even avoid pirating multiple games so that they can play an F2P game.... Cmon dude. Someone who's financially motivated to pirate will surely avoid pirating multiple 60$ games just to be able to pay for a subscription. That makes sense to you.

Oh so now people who would pirate games on console have different tastes than regular consumers, and they have no interest in online play, paid or otherwise, based on...what, exactly?

The fact of the matter is that you'd have to give up a lot more and have to jump over a lot more hurdles if you want to pirate games on consoles compared to PC, and it's basically impossible on next gen machines.

It's still just a subset of all anime/manga, for a limited amount of regions. Not even most of Europe has Simulcast, much less in their native language. Step out the bubble of the US.

The point still stands. There's been drastic improvements to the availability, yet we've seen not even the slightest of improvement to the piracy rates of Anime.

This is the second source in a row you've posted without reading.
Try to do more than just googling and posting the first link, this is the original source from that graph:

Cybersecurity | IBC365

Strengthen cybersecurity for digital media and content protection. Prevent unauthorized access, safeguard intellectual property, and defend against cyber threats with robust security measures for media industries.

www.ibc.org

"Legitimate revenues from OTT TV episodes and movie overtook online piracy losses as far back as 2013. The gap between the two measures is widening."

Do you actually understand what a lost sale really is? Because based on your posts in this thread and the section you've quoted here, I don't think that you do.

The graph shows that losses of revenue to piracy has increased significantly since at least 2010. This shows a clear increase in piracy over this period of time. The fact that total online revenue has also increased during this period is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because we're discussion lost sales and lost revenue. Not a decrease of total revenue.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

It's not a weird take, the people that are financially motivated to pirate likely won't shell out 60$ just because it's uncrackable, they won't simply play the game.

LOL what??

So if pirating became impossible tomorrow these people would quit gaming and do something else?

 

[SomeGit]

You wouldn't see the impact on sales when a game was cracked. Do you know why? Because you don't have access to such detailed sales data. Do you know who does have access to exact sales data? The publishers that continue to invest enormous amount of funding to develop and license anti piracy software because they do have data that suggests they are losing a substantial enough amount of sales to piracy to justify those investments.

An appeal to Authority? Don't kid yourself. You have no insider knowledge about this subject. No invested interest either. You're desperately trying to put your own opinion on the same level as publishers which have vastly more experience and data about this subject than you do.

The idea that all of the publishers are wrong and simply wasting money while you, who unironically uses arguments such as :"Well sales are high so that means Piracy isn't causing a significant amount of lost sales", has this all figured out is simply laughable.

And I suppose you do have the exact sales numbers to be able to say definitively that? I suppose you aren't trying to put you opinion on the same level as publishers who don't opt for DRM, put their games on GOG and Gabe Newell himself? Grow up.
Yes, because publishers aren't known for wasting money all the time. The game is cracked, if it does cause a significant impact we'd be seeing it right now, we'd be seeing it when CP2077 came out.
Saying "the publishers must know!" over and over again isn't an argument, it's an appeal to authority. A logical fallacy.

Idiotic when it's not even the majority of publishers. Are Sony wrong for opting out of Denuvo? Are Paradox wrong for opting out of Denuvo? Are CDPR wrong for opting out of Denuvo? Are ABK wrong for opting out of Denuvo? Are Bandai Namco wrong for opting out of Denuvo? etc. etc.

That's literally what I'm saying. Read again. Properly this time, please.

You should read the entire sentence, mate.
Properly this time, please.

Well, the first and foremost conclusion is that you seem to be unaware of the price difference between the N64 and the PSone. The Nintendo 64 and PSone had comparable hardware prices, but the software prices were significantly different. Nintendo 64 games were much more expensive than PSone games.

The point is that you can't just compare the PSone to Nintendo 64, point out that the software attachment rate was higher for the PSone and then conclude that must mean that there was no significant loss in sales due to piracy. They don't share the same software library, they don't share the same software prices and they arguably don't target the same audience either. There's far to many variables to draw that conclusion

You brough the comparision friend. If piracy was such a big issue, the attach rate would be signigicantly down.
I'm not just comparing PS1 to N64, I mentioned PS1 attach rate in relation to other platforms, PS1 has an attach rate that completely in line with other systems

Oh so now people who would pirate games on console have different tastes than regular consumers, and they have no interest in online play, paid or otherwise, based on...what, exactly?

The fact of the matter is that you'd have to give up a lot more and have to jump over a lot more hurdles if you want to pirate games on consoles compared to PC, and it's basically impossible on next gen machines.

Because piracy on consoles was always at the expense of online play, why would it change with the PS4? Why would it change with the Switch?
Piracy on console was always harder than PC, what point are you even making here? But it's not like it's that hard, Switch and PS4 are relatively easy compared to PS1, where you had to modify the hardware or disc jockey around.

The point still stands. There's been drastic improvements to the availability, yet we've seen not even the slightest of improvement to the piracy rates of Anime.

Drastic improvement, if you only count the US.
And not even slightest of improvement of piracy rates. By what metric? And read your source this time.

Do you actually understand what a lost sale really is? Because based on your posts in this thread and the section you've quoted here, I don't think that you do.

The graph shows that losses of revenue to piracy has increased significantly since at least 2010. This shows a clear increase in piracy over this period of time. The fact that total online revenue has also increased during this period is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because we're discussion lost sales and lost revenue. Not a decrease of total revenue.

We've been always talking about piracy rates, even you yourself mention it again in your post above. Piracy rate is always evaluated in relation to legal revenue, if legal revenue is going up but potential losses aren't then piracy rate isn't higher.
Before changing the subject to save face, you should read your sources.

 

[SomeGit]

LOL what??

So if pirating became impossible tomorrow these people would quit gaming and do something else?

There's plenty to play outside 60$ games, even for free.

 

[Rykan]

And I suppose you do have the exact sales numbers to be able to say definitively that? I suppose you aren't trying to put you opinion on the same level as publishers who don't opt for DRM, put their games on GOG and Gabe Newell himself? Grow up.
Yes, because publishers aren't known for wasting money all the time. The game is cracked, if it does cause a significant impact we'd be seeing it right now, we'd be seeing it when CP2077 came out.
Saying "the publishers must know!" over and over again isn't an argument, it's an appeal to authority. A logical fallacy.

Idiotic when it's not even the majority of publishers, it's not even the majority of AAA publishers. Are Sony wrong for opting out of Denuvo? Are Paradox wrong for opting out of Denuvo? Are CDPR wrong for opting out of Denuvo? etc. etc.

This is little more than a glorified "No u". I don't have the exact sales number to be able to definitively say that, which is exactly why I don't do that. The fact that publishers make different decisions regarding DRM does not mean that I suddenly put my own opinion on the same level as Publishers which have vastly more data accessible, nor do I claim to have access to information that I don't have access to.

The game is cracked, we'd be seeing the impact right now? Where? You don't have access to specific sales data.

There's all sorts of reasons why a publisher could choose to not use DRM. They may not want to inconvenience player who purchase their games. They may not consider it effective enough. They may not want to spend the costs.

You should read the entire sentence, mate.
Properly this time, please.

I have. This has already been addressed. Next.

You brough the comparision friend. If piracy was such a big issue, the attach rate would be signigicantly down.
I'm not just comparing PS1 to N64, I mentioned PS1 attach rate in relation to other platforms, PS1 has an attach rate that completely in line with other systems

I didn't compare the software. Only the methods used to fight off piracy.

The bolded part is flatout wrong, because there are many other factors. As long as consoles do not have the exact same library or even the same prices for their software, the software attach rate cannot be compared to draw conclusions from in regards to piracy.

Because piracy on consoles was always at the expense of online play, why would it change with the PS4? Why would it change with the Switch?
Piracy on console was always harder than PC, what point are you even making here? But it's not like it's that hard, Switch and PS4 are relatively easy compared to PS1, where you had to modify the hardware or disc jockey around.

The point is that piracy on consoles for present systems and therefore most new releases is almost nonexistent. You don't solve piracy by having "Better service" because it's not a service issue. You solve it by making piracy impossible and forcing people to pay for their games if they want to play them.

Drastic improvement, if you only count the US.
And not even slightest of improvement of piracy rates. By what metric? And read your source this time.

Please don't confuse your lack of basic understanding on how to interpret data with me not reading my sources. I've posted this source previously in this thread, go back two pages to find it.

We've been always talking about piracy rates, even you yourself mention it again in your post above. Piracy rate is always evaluated in relation to legal revenue, if legal revenue is going up but potential losses aren't then piracy rate isn't higher.
Before changing the subject to save face, you should read your sources.

No, we're not talking about Piracy rates as evaluated to legal revenue because that wouldn't make any sense in the context of the argument. The argument that was laid forward is that Piracy is a service issue and that creating more convenient service options (Such as streaming for movies and TV) would reduce the amount of piracy. The rise of streaming services like Netflix shows no decline in the amount of piracy. In fact, it shows the opposite: A continues increase in the amount of piracy and the amount of lost revenue due to piracy.

The total amount of legal revenue is completely irrelevant, because there are far more factors in play that dictate the total amount of legal revenue.

 

[SeraphJan]

While I understand why publisher decide to use Denuvo, but ordinary consumer should never pay the price for the pirates

 

[SomeGit]

This is little more than a glorified "No u". I don't have the exact sales number to be able to definitively say that, which is exactly why I don't do that. The fact that publishers make different decisions regarding DRM does not mean that I suddenly put my own opinion on the same level as Publishers which have vastly more data accessible, nor do I claim to have access to information that I don't have access to.

A glorified "no u" is the proper response to your logical fallacy.
If I can't disagree with their decisions, you offering the opposite opinion should carry the same weight.

The game is cracked, we'd be seeing the impact right now? Where? You don't have access to specific sales data.

I don't need specific numbers, if it's a significant impact, it should be visible even in the Steam top sellers.
Again, if it's that significant as you are implying.

There's all sorts of reasons why a publisher could choose to not use DRM. They may not want to inconvenience player who purchase their games. They may not consider it effective enough. They may not want to spend the costs. DRM isn't the only method of Copy protection either.

Nice to see you dance around the issue, lovely.
And thank for clarifying you don't know what DRM means, any kind of copy protection is DRM.

I have. This has already been addressed. Next.

You have not.

I didn't compare the software. Only the methods used to fight off piracy.

The bolded part is flatout wrong, because there are many other factors. As long as consoles do not have the exact same library or even the same prices for their software, the software attach rate cannot be compared to draw conclusions from in regards to piracy.

You mentioned that PS1 was rampant and easy as hell. It's not flatout wrong, don't weasel yourself out of this, if piracy was that much of an impact on sales the attach rate of PS1 games would be outside the norm of other consoles. PS1 weren't significantly cheaper than PS4 games, PS1 games weren't less plentiful than PS4 games, etc.

The point is that piracy on consoles for present systems and therefore most new releases is almost nonexistent. You don't solve piracy by having "Better service" because it's not a service issue. You solve it by making piracy impossible and forcing people to pay for their games if they want to play them.

But it's not impossible... It only impossible, at the moment, on next get hardware and there is likely just a matter of time.
But let's assume it is impossible and it stays impossible, then why not just stop with the PC versions? If it's impossible to pirate on console, and it's not a service issue we only care about removing "lost sales" then surely stopping the PC versions should drive everyone to XSX and PS5.
Or better yet, make cloud versions for PC and mobile, you can't pirate a cloud version. Piracy is solved then? Right? No more lost sales.

Please don't confuse your lack of basic understanding of how data and figure works with me not reading my sources. I've literally posted this source previously in this thread, go back two pages to find it.

Well maybe you should re-read what you posted, because the source that article gives is for Manga, not Anime there is no mention of piracy rate or even lost revenue for Anime piracy on what you posted since the source is ABJ (Authorized Books of Japan), which handles books not Anime.
Lack of basic understanding? Get a mirror, this is the 3rd source you bottled. See this is the problem with googling what you want, and pasting the link first try.

No, we're not talking about Piracy rates as evaluated to legal revenue because that wouldn't make any sense in the context of the argument. The argument that was laid forward is that Piracy is a service issue and that creating more convenient service options (Such as streaming for movies and TV) would reduce the amount of piracy. The rise of streaming services like Netflix shows no decline in the amount of piracy. In fact, it shows the opposite: A continues increase in the amount of piracy and the amount of lost revenue due to piracy.

The total amount of legal revenue is completely irrelevant, because there are far more factors in play that dictate the total amount of legal revenue.

Talking about it in any other way is what doesn't make sense, piracy rate is always ALWAYS in relation to total amount of legal revenue. It's the definition of piracy rate, the argument is that a better service decreases the piracy rate because it offers paying customers a better service than what piracy offers. You keep talking about "factors" and "variables" yet you always stay clear of attach rates and piracy rates which are normalized values.

Of course potential "lost revenue" is bigger there are more people online, there are more people streaming, there are more people into anime and games. But the rate of piracy decreased over the last decade, we went from publishers complaining about 90% piracy to games selling in the 10 of millions on PC, with or without DRM.

Piracy will always exist on open platforms, you can never ever make piracy impossible on the open net, you can never remove piracy from PC. But if you improve your services to the point were the piracy option is much less viable than what you get though official methods, like Steam does, like what Netflix, Spotify, like CruchyRoll etc. if you start making your stuff available you'll more revenue gains instead of chasing minor gains in a market that likely won't give much return because they weren't interested in paying in the first place. Claiming otherwise is revisionism, from someone who clearly wasn't there when PC gaming was in the dumps from 2003-2007 excluding WoW.

 

[Silver Wattle]

Bro I'm sorry for this shit! Last night was bad

No worries man, I edited my comment since I think I had a stick up my butt at the time.

 

[Skifi28]

Someone had to:

 

[JakeWolf]

While I understand why publisher decide to use Denuvo, but ordinary consumer should never pay the price for the pirates

This. Time to bring out the good old Gabe Newell quote.

 

[Rykan]

A glorified "no u" is the proper response to your logical fallacy.
If I can't disagree with their decisions, you offering the opposite opinion should carry the same weight.

It's not a logical fallacy to point out that you're trying to form an opinion on data that you don't have. You claim to be able to see the impact of piracy on sales, but you have absolutely no access to this information at all.

I don't need specific numbers, if it's a significant impact, it should be visible even in the Steam top sellers.
Again, if it's that significant as you are implying.

There's no way you're serious with this. You think you can see the impact of Piracy based on Steams top sellers charts? This is by far the most ridiculous thing you've said. You have no idea how many copies HL has sold on Steam and therefore you can't make any basis on that. Hypothetically, Hogwarts Legacy could be so popular that Piracy could be 20% of its total Steam sales and that could still be enough to have it on top of the steam charts depending on how many sales there are of other games, which you don't know either. That could be hundreds of thousands of copies.

Nice to see you dance around the issue, lovely.
And thank for clarifying you don't know what DRM means, any kind of copy protection is DRM.

Mate, you literally just claimed you could see the impact of piracy on the top sellers steamcharts when confronted with the fact you claim to have access to data you clearly don't have access to. You may want to avoid talking about "Dancing around the issue".

You have not.

I have.

You mentioned that PS1 was rampant and easy as hell. It's not flatout wrong, don't weasel yourself out of this, if piracy was that much of an impact on sales the attach rate of PS1 games would be outside the norm of other consoles. PS1 weren't significantly cheaper than PS4 games, PS1 games weren't less plentiful than PS4 games, etc.

Did the Playstation 1 have free to play games such as Fortnite or Call of Duty Warzone, which are some of the most played games on the platform? Did the Playstation 1 had DLC and Microtransactions? Did the PS1 include three free games every single month included with PS plus membership? There are so many different factors that you are not taking into account

Besides, we don't even know what the PS4 attach rate is when all is said and done. It was around 8.7 in early 2018. It was already 9.6 by the end of 2018. It was 10.3 in 2020. It was around 12.9 in 2021. The attach rate of the PS4 is much, much bigger than that of the PS1 which was like what, 9.6? Do you now understand why it is utterly moronic to just point towards software attach rates without take any other differentiating factors into account?

But it's not impossible... It only impossible, at the moment, on next get hardware and there is likely just a matter of time.
But let's assume it is impossible and it stays impossible, then why not just stop with the PC versions? If it's impossible to pirate on console, and it's not a service issue we only care about removing "lost sales" then surely stopping the PC versions should drive everyone to XSX and PS5.
Or better yet, make cloud versions for PC and mobile, you can't pirate a cloud version. Piracy is solved then? Right? No more lost sales.

I didn't think "I can see the results of piracy in steam charts top sellers list" would be already be topped by most absurd take, but here we are. A publisher not releasing a game on PC isn't going to suddenly drag PC gamers over to consoles. A cloud version has all sorts of technical hurdles that would leave it inaccessible to a huge number of the playerbase.

Well maybe you should re-read what you posted, because the source that article gives is for Manga, not Anime there is no mention of piracy rate or even lost revenue for Anime piracy on what you posted since the source is ABJ (Authorized Books of Japan), which handles books not Anime.
Lack of basic understanding? Get a mirror, this is the 3rd source you bottled. See this is the problem with googling what you want, and pasting the link first try.

They are considered the same industry by the original source of the article. There's no reason to assume that Manga piracy has drastically increased where as anime has not, considering that other forms of film entertainment also saw a drastic increase in piracy. That said, the irony of you complaining about sources while being unable to cite even a single source for any of your claims has not been lost on me. Well, besides that one time you claimed you could see the effects of piracy in Steams best selling charts. Least we all had a good laugh at that one, mate.

Talking about it in any other way is what doesn't make sense, piracy rate is always ALWAYS in relation to total amount of legal revenue. It's the definition of piracy rate, the argument is that a better service decreases the piracy rate because it offers paying customers a better service than what piracy offers. You keep talking about "factors" and "variables" yet you always stay clear of attach rates and piracy rates which are normalized values.

Of course potential "lost revenue" is bigger there are more people online, there are more people streaming, there are more people into anime and games. But the rate of piracy decreased over the last decade, we went from publishers complaining about 90% piracy to games selling in the 10 of millions on PC, with or without DRM.

Piracy will always exist on open platforms, you can never ever make piracy impossible on the open net, you can never remove piracy from PC. But if you improve your services to the point were the piracy option is much less viable than what you get though official methods, like Steam does, like what Netflix, Spotify, like CruchyRoll etc. if you start making your stuff available you'll more revenue gains instead of chasing minor gains in a market that likely won't give much return because they weren't interested in paying in the first place. Claiming otherwise is revisionism, from someone who clearly wasn't there when PC gaming was in the dumps from 2003-2007 excluding WoW.

The total amount of legal revenue has all sorts of factors that influences it. Better marketing, better focus on select Brands, broader and wider availability, increased opportunity for further revenue beyond box office/theater release/ store release. All of these factors play a part in the total legal revenue. It's absurd to talk about "piracy rate" in relation to total legal revenue when discussing the effect of service improvements.

In other words: They've become better at increasing their revenue while the amount of pirates and piracy have increased substantially, just not at a rate fast enough to keep up with the increasing revenue. There is no evidence that suggests pirates have been "converted" from piracy to legal streaming because there's been an increase in piracy: Not a decrease. And I'm gonna make a prediction here: There will be a further increase in piracy once Netflix (and other streaming services) will completely stop allowing people to share their netflix accounts and the people using other peoples accounts will have to find other ways to get their entertainment.

Frankly, I've made my point and that will be the end of the discussion for me. Agree to disagree, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SomeGit]

It's not a logical fallacy to point out that you're trying to form an opinion on data that you don't have. You claim to be able to see the impact of piracy on sales, but you have absolutely no access to this information at all.

Neither do you yet you claim the reverse is right.

There's no way you're serious with this. You think you can see the impact of Piracy based on Steams top sellers charts? This is by far the most ridiculous thing you've said. You have no idea how many copies HL has sold on Steam and therefore you can't make any basis on that. Hypothetically, Hogwarts Legacy could be so popular that Piracy could be 20% of its total Steam sales and that could still be enough to have it on top of the steam charts depending on how many sales there are of other games, which you don't know either. That could be hundreds of thousands of copies.

HL hasn't been at the very top of the Steam sales charts since a few weeks ago, so yes while not scientific far from it of course, if the scenario is as catastrophic as you are implying you would see it.
I don't think you seriously believe that the entire steam sales fell in unity. Just great buddies all around.

I have.

You haven't.

Did the Playstation 1 have free to play games such as Fortnite or Call of Duty Warzone, which are some of the most played games on the platform? Did the Playstation 1 had DLC and Microtransactions? Did the PS1 include three free games every single month included with PS plus membership? There are so many different factors that you are not taking into account

Besides, we don't even know what the PS4 attach rate is when all is said and done. It was around 8.7 in early 2018. It was already 9.6 by the end of 2018. It was 10.3 in 2020. It was around 12.9 in 2021. The attach rate of the PS4 is much, much bigger than that of the PS1 which was like what, 9.6? Do you now understand why it is utterly moronic to just point towards software attach rates without take any other differentiating factors into account?

All numbers you have past 2020 include PS5 sales since Sony is bundling the together, it's not much much bigger than the PS1.
Yes, all of that doesn't matter, if the PS1 had a catastrophic piracy situation as you were describing the attach rate would be much lower, especially since PS4 digital games are much cheaper which PS1 also didn't have.

I didn't think "I can see the results of piracy in steam charts top sellers list" would be already be topped by most absurd take, but here we are. A publisher not releasing a game on PC isn't going to suddenly drag PC gamers over to consoles. A cloud version has all sorts of technical hurdles that would leave it inaccessible to a huge number of the playerbase.

Yeah, it's almost like availability and service quality matters. Shocker.

They are considered the same industry by the original source of the article. There's no reason to assume that Manga piracy has drastically increased where as anime has not, considering that other forms of film entertainment also saw a drastic increase in piracy. That said, the irony of you complaining about sources while being unable to cite even a single source for any of your claims has not been lost on me. Well, besides that one time you claimed you could see the effects of piracy in Steams best selling charts. Least we all had a good laugh at that one, mate.

If your source bundles manga and anime then you source is crap. Manga doesn't even have anything close to simulcast or even a comparable distribuition range as anime and is a completely different medium.
Again don't source the first crap you see on google, you were clearly talking about Anime and are just now trying to bundle them together to save face. Source your crap better next time.

The total amount of legal revenue has all sorts of factors that influences it. Better marketing, better focus on select Brands, broader and wider availability, increased opportunity for further revenue beyond box office/theater release/ store release. All of these factors play a part in the total legal revenue. It's absurd to talk about "piracy rate" in relation to total legal revenue when discussing the effect of service improvements.

It's absurd to not talk about piracy rate in relation to total legal revenue, that's the definition of piracy rate. You can dance around it, but don't start trying to change definitions.

In other words: They've become better at increasing their revenue while the amount of pirates and piracy have increased substantially, just not at a rate fast enough to keep up with the increasing revenue. There is no evidence that suggests pirates have been "converted" from piracy to legal streaming because there's been an increase in piracy: Not a decrease.

The revenue increase but not at a rate fast enought to keep up with the increased revenue? What?
Piracy hasn't increased substatially, thanks to the source you posted, we know that is hasn't increased substantially it in has kept up with the rise of total legal revenue, it has decreased.

And I'm gonna make a prediction here: There will be a further increase in piracy once Netflix (and other streaming services) will completely stop allowing people to share their netflix accounts and the people using other peoples accounts will have to find other ways to get their entertainment.

The service gets worse, people quit, simple as.

Frankly, I've made my point and that will be the end of the discussion for me. Agree to disagree, as far as I'm concerned.

Bye, agree to disagree then.

 

[Alexios]

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

Can you gimme a tldr please? I can't read Twitter stuff cuz I have no acct

 

[Fabieter]

While I understand why publisher decide to use Denuvo, but ordinary consumer should never pay the price for the pirates

The best way against pirates is to make the game unbeatable at a certain point in the story for a non official version. I know batman arkam asylum did something like that haha.

 

[Esppiral]

Can't wait to see the performance on Nintendo Switch

 

[nkarafo]

The best way against pirates is to make the game unbeatable at a certain point in the story for a non official version. I know batman arkam asylum did something like that haha.

These tricks don't last. At best, it will affect the very early copies for a day or two but the moment something like this is discovered, it gets patched.

 

[Clear]

These tricks don't last. At best, it will affect the very early copies for a day or two but the moment something like this is discovered, it gets patched.

It just depends on how much effort is put into silently crippling the program if the security check fails. Doing something subtle like re/moving random but key platforms (like Leander / Galahad did on Amiga) is very effective for a long time.

If devs wanted to do similar stuff on big, complex titles, they could make it basically more effort than its worth for the crackers to fully remove every trapdoor.

But here's the thing: What's the key metric for efficacy in terms of any sort of DRM?

Basically you look and see how many pirated copies are being torrented or whatever.

So even if you know with fair confidence that most or all of these copies will still have "silent" protections active, and thus are hurting the experience for people using them, its not going to have any meaningful impact.

See, what people don't seem to grasp is that the purpose of DRM is deterrence, not exclusion or punishment. There's no "win" in ruining a pirate's experience, because basically its if anything going to increase the number of cracked/patch versions in circulation as more people look to download a better/working copy. And that in turn stands against the perceived need to legitimately purchase and get the dev's paid.

Hence, its better to be upfront about the protection/DRM triggering even if that makes it much easier for the crackers to circumvent it!

The dirty secret of course being that far from groups like EMPRESS being the nemesis of DENUVO, they may as well be in partnership as the crackers are the ones driving demand for the DRM purveyor's business model! Everytime they "defeat" a certain version, it creates a need for a newer, more robust implementation that pubs/devs *really* need to pay for as its the only way to stay ahead!