Support NeoGAF

[CecilRousso]

OK.

First of all:

a) so it's acceptable if it's a big publisher/dev, but suddenly when it's an indie dev, piracy concerns shouldn't matter?

b) I think you're overestimating what that number means. Steamspy shows Total Owners, and Total users who've played. Even if you're going by Total Owners, realize that LIMBO was one of the first Humble Bundle games, back when you could literally give $0.01 to get a Steam key for it. By that logic, those 3,727,693 copies equals $3,727.70. (We can most likely assume at least 50% of the copies are normal price/sale price, but again, your post seems to be based on the logic that all copies were likely sold at a price that would've covered all the work and effort spent making the game (and the sequel, which apparently was in dev for 6 years).

Look, if you don't like Denuvo and wish to not support it, that's fine, but please don't spread this bullshit theory that Playdead is trying to line their coffers and are being greedy. :/

About a) - what? When have I ever said that it's acceptable for a big publisher? It isn't. I don't think that.

The difference is that I more understand how the descision to include it is taken when it's a big publisher, then when it's an indie. Indies should know better, and value their customers better.

About b) No matter how you twist those numbers, they indicate Limbo being a huge success on PC. Even we devaluate each copy there to $1-2 each, it would have been an indie success on PC.

I don't think that Playdead are greedy, since I don't think there is a significant financial gain by including Denuvo. I think they have taken a poor descision that disrespects their customers and the PC market.

 

[ghostjoke]

I've dealt with both starforce and securom.

Yet you have no sympathy for people who are worried about going through similar experiences. I don't care if you don't care about Denuvo, but don't act like there aren't valid concerns. or mock them, considering the entire history of DRM and DRM derivatives.

 

[Lanrutcon]

I can't tell people how to spend their hard earned money, but can I just say that whether you buy it now or on sale later because of Denuvo: definitely get your hands on it. It's an incredible little jewel.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

About a) - what? When have I ever said that it's acceptable for a big publisher? It isn't. I don't think that.

The difference is that I more understand how the descision to include it is taken when it's a big publisher, then when it's an indie. Indies should know better, and value their customers better.

About b) No matter how you twist those numbers, they indicate Limbo being a huge success on PC. Even we devaluate each copy there to $1-2 each, it would have been an indie success on PC.

I don't think that Playdead are greedy, since I don't think there is a significant financial gain by including Denuvo. I think they have taken a poor descision that disrespects their customers and the PC market.

The wording (in my opinion) seemed to highlight the indie dev word in that sentence, I might've been wrong, but just to be sure I felt it necessary to bring it up.

Again, if you have a problem with Denuvo and do not wish to support it, that's OK, but your post highlighted the amount of copies owned on Steam, which could easily be construed as "see, they made money", without having any idea what the associated costs for the dev are, as again I mentioned, INSIDE has been in some form of development for the last 6 years.

 

[ChryZ]

People who think Denuvo is nothing to worry about should try to play a SafeDisc or SecuROM "protected" game on WIndows10.

They were way more intrusive, relying on their own drivers. That made compatibility with future windows versions pretty much a complete gamble.

... and the company behind Denuvo providing authentication servers in the future isn't a gamble for the paying customer?

 

[CecilRousso]

The wording (in my opinion) seemed to highlight the indie dev word in that sentence, I might've been wrong, but just to be sure I felt it necessary to bring it up.

Again, if you have a problem with Denuvo and do not wish to support it, that's OK, but your post highlighted the amount of copies owned on Steam, which could easily be construed as "see, they made money", without having any idea what the associated costs for the dev are, as again I mentioned, INSIDE has been in some form of development for the last 6 years.

The idea to post Steamspy numbers is to show that games on PC sell without excessive DRM. Denuvo won't save anyone.

We can play tennis with Limbo's numbers as much as we want, and then I can just provide additional examples.

 

[M3d10n]

Have any Win10 store games have any extra DRM?

They can't install drivers/rootkits/devices that would otherwise muck your system, but anything that works at the application level (like Denuvo) can be used (W10 apps can use dynamically generated code, so Denuvo's VM works in them).

 

[GrantDaNasty]

The idea to post Steamspy numbers is to show that games on PC sell without excessive DRM. Denuvo won't save anyone.

We can play tennis with Limbo's numbers as much as we want, and then I can just provide additional examples.

Agreed, but again, the whole piracy conversation has too many theoretical factors to say one way or another if a dev suffered "actual lost sales" versus "these people were never going to pay for it either because they won't or can't". You might be right that for Playdead to use Denuvo is misguided or even detrimental, it'll certainly affect some purchasing decisions.

I just needed to know where you stand, and you seem to be looking at it from a rational perspective, so I think an understanding has been made.

 

[Real_Madrid]

The idea to post Steamspy numbers is to show that games on PC sell without excessive DRM. Denuvo won't save anyone.

We can play tennis with Limbo's numbers as much as we want, and then I can just provide additional examples.

And that's mostly irrelevant in this case. Games will sell well on PC regardless of DRM. That's why the Witcher 3 thing in these threads is always weird. Like such a game needs DRM to sell good on PC.
No one is saying that games won't sell well on PC without DRM, but DRM is just a way to ensure that the game isn't pirated and apparently a lot of publishers/developers think it's worth it.

And I personally don't even care about the sales thing, I just like the fact that pirates get it harder with Denuvo.
Nobody is entitled to play games illegally for free and the whole preservation thing is kind of weird in an age where singleplayer titles are becoming a minority.

 

[Arulan]

And that's mostly irrelevant in this case. Games will sell well on PC regardless of DRM. That's why the Witcher 3 thing in these threads is always weird. Like such a game needs DRM to sell good on PC.
No one is saying that games won't sell well on PC without DRM, but DRM is just a way to ensure that the game isn't pirated and apparently a lot of publishers/developers think it's worth it.

And I personally don't even care about the sales thing, I just like the fact that pirates get it harder with Denuvo.
Nobody is entitled to play games illegally for free and the whole preservation thing is kind of weird in an age where singleplayer titles are becoming a minority.

What is this, 2010? By no means are single-player games in a minority.

As for online preservation, a similar argument to this one is why people advocate for server browsers and the ability to host their own servers.

ANYTHING whatsoever, that relies upon the developer/publisher to maintain is taking a huge risk in that at some point it will no longer be playable. That is why I and many others are advocating for games to be released without necessary future support, because we don't trust the goodwill of these developers/publishers (or in a lot of cases, whether they're even still around to).

 

[MUnited83]

And that's mostly irrelevant in this case. Games will sell well on PC regardless of DRM. That's why the Witcher 3 thing in these threads is always weird. Like such a game needs DRM to sell good on PC.
No one is saying that games won't sell well on PC without DRM, but DRM is just a way to ensure that the game isn't pirated and apparently a lot of publishers/developers think it's worth it.

And I personally don't even care about the sales thing, I just like the fact that pirates get it harder with Denuvo.
Nobody is entitled to play games illegally for free and the whole preservation thing is kind of weird in an age where singleplayer titles are becoming a minority.

Single player games are not a minority by any stretch. Also, preservation is important for online games as well, which is why people constantly ask for the ability of hosting your own servers. I still play Jedi Academy and Unreal Tournament thanks to that.

 

[Corpekata]

The majority of the Denuvo games are single player games, or at least ones with a major SP focus.

 

[Real_Madrid]

What is this, 2010? By no means are single-player games in a minority.

As for online preservation, a similar argument to this one is why people advocate for server browsers and the ability to host their own servers.

ANYTHING whatsoever, that relies upon the developer/publisher to maintain is taking a huge risk in that at some point it will no longer be playable. That is why I and many others are advocating for games to be released without necessary future support, because we don't trust the goodwill of these developers/publishers (or in a lot of cases, whether they're even still around to).

Look up a list of games that PC gamers are playing the most, how many of them are preservable?

 

[CecilRousso]

And I personally don't even care about the sales thing, I just like the fact that pirates get it harder with Denuvo.
Nobody is entitled to play games illegally for free and the whole preservation thing is kind of weird in an age where singleplayer titles are becoming a minority.

You want DRM in the games just to spite other people? That sounds like weird priorities to me.

 

[wesleyshark]

You want DRM in the games just to spite other people? That sounds like weird priorities to me.

I like DRM in games to spite pirates.

 

[ScientificPizza]

... and the company behind Denuvo providing authentication servers in the future isn't a gamble for the paying customer?

Here's the thing about the 'paying customer': the vast majority of them don't even know what Denuvo is. I'd go so far as to wager that the vast majority don't even know what DRM is. Much less give half a fuck about games preservation.

I will, whoever, wager that more people know about the ability and ease of games pirating than they ever will about DRM. When I was a kid there were people my dad worked with when I was a kid who knew about chipped playstations and the ease of copying floppy's without ever even playing a video game. Protecting against something as rampant as piracy while potentially angering a subsection of a subsection of the audience is probably something most developers and publishers have considered.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the people who frequent GAF aren't always the most common representation of the average video game player, and our specific needs and desires probably aren't the most prevailing thoughts in the overall community.

 

[cyba89]

You want DRM in the games just to spite other people? That sounds like weird priorities to me.

There is absolutely nothing weird about it.

 

[bidguy]

game is way overpriced anyway so people who wait for a sale are doing it right

 

[Arulan]

Look up a list of games that PC gamers are playing the most, how many of them are preservable?

A lot of online games on PC allow you to host your own servers. Dota 2, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, and Team Fortress 2, are some of the most played online games on Steam and allow for this. And most non-online games don't usually have anything that would impede preservation.

Regardless of whether there were many or few, what is your point? That if there were many, it acts as an argument for: just deal with it like everyone else?

 

[holygeesus]

People who are claiming that Denuvo doesn't equate to increased sales need to appreciate that licensing the software costs a significant sum. It begs the question - why would they splash out a fair wedge of cash on said protection if it wasn't going to be financially beneficial to them in the long run? It wouldn't have been something they committed to lightly.

 

[jmga]

And that's mostly irrelevant in this case. Games will sell well on PC regardless of DRM. That's why the Witcher 3 thing in these threads is always weird. Like such a game needs DRM to sell good on PC.
No one is saying that games won't sell well on PC without DRM, but DRM is just a way to ensure that the game isn't pirated and apparently a lot of publishers/developers think it's worth it.

And I personally don't even care about the sales thing, I just like the fact that pirates get it harder with Denuvo.
Nobody is entitled to play games illegally for free and the whole preservation thing is kind of weird in an age where singleplayer titles are becoming a minority.

How sales can be irrelevant?

This is a business, money comes from sales, not from people not pirating a game.

 

[CecilRousso]

People who are claiming that Denuvo doesn't equate to increased sales need to appreciate that licensing the software costs a significant sum. It begs the question - why would they splash out a fair wedge of cash on said protection if it wasn't going to be financially beneficial to them in the long run? It wouldn't have been something they committed to lightly.

1. Peace of mind.
2. Fear.
3. Denuvo might have good sales people.
4. No piracy does mean that they won't have to spend support resources on people who didn't buy it.

 

[jim2point0]

I'd put money down on Denuvo's positive affect on game sales outweighing the negative affect from people refusing to buy it because they happened to learn it's there. Not that there's any way to know of either, really.

So far, I've had 0 issues with Denuvo. And if not for stumbling onto threads like this, I'd likely never learn of the games that are actually using it (same goes for most people buying it I suspect). I also like the idea of increased game sales if it helps keep PC Gaming healthy so yeah, I'm totally cool with this. I do plan to get the game whenever time permits me to play it.

 

[holygeesus]

1. Peace of mind.
2. Fear.
3. Denuvo might have good sales people.
4. No piracy does mean that they won't have to spend support resources on people who didn't buy it.

Why doesn't every game use it then? That list applies to any game developed today.

 

[jmga]

Why doesn't every game use it then? That list applies to any game developed today.

Some devs respect their customers.

 

[CecilRousso]

Why doesn't every game use it then? That list applies to any game developed today.

Most devs hopefully doesn't deem this peace of mind as important.
Most devs hopefully can handle the fear of piracy.
Most devs hopefully can resist snake oil salesmen.
And I can't answer to how much impact the support for pirated copies have for different devs.

 

[Mivey]

Why doesn't every game use it then? That list applies to any game developed today.

Denuvo is probably expensive. For one, I don't see any price tag advertised anywhere, so they might negotiate it on a case by case basis.

 

[Corpekata]

People who are claiming that Denuvo doesn't equate to increased sales need to appreciate that licensing the software costs a significant sum. It begs the question - why would they splash out a fair wedge of cash on said protection if it wasn't going to be financially beneficial to them in the long run? It wouldn't have been something they committed to lightly.

I mean, they might THINK it will lead to more, but that doesn't mean it will. With your logic I could say "Well, Microsoft is investing in the Zune, so clearly they think it will be profitable in the long run." Doesn't mean these companies are correct. Dozens of bad decisions regarding products are made a day.

 

[schlynch]

didnt know that until I saw this post. going for a refund then.

such a shame, I was really looking forward to this game.

 

[JaseC]

This is a one time thing though in installation right? Because:



That very much implies to me that it isn't every time you want to play the game, but only once.

Yeah, sorry, I fumbled my phrasing a bit. Serves me right for posting at 4am, haha. I've edited my post to make the restriction absolutely clear.

 

[Turin Turambar]

Why doesn't every game use it then? That list applies to any game developed today.

It could be it has a fairly hefty price, maybe MS bought an "enterprise license" to use in all their published games.

 

[Durante]

And that's mostly irrelevant in this case. Games will sell well on PC regardless of DRM. That's why the Witcher 3 thing in these threads is always weird. Like such a game needs DRM to sell good on PC.
No one is saying that games won't sell well on PC without DRM, but DRM is just a way to ensure that the game isn't pirated and apparently a lot of publishers/developers think it's worth it.

If the point isn't to improve sales, then what is the point?

Nobody is entitled to play games illegally for free and the whole preservation thing is kind of weird in an age where singleplayer titles are becoming a minority.

That's incredibly short-sighted. And, in fact, I'm pretty sure it's wrong as well. The majority of games being released on PC are single-player ones.

There is absolutely nothing weird about it.

Have I fallen into antisocial GAF?

 

[Turin Turambar]

I mean, they might THINK it will lead to more, but that doesn't mean it will. With your logic I could say "Well, Microsoft is investing in the Zune, so clearly they think it will be profitable in the long run." Doesn't mean these companies are correct. Dozens of bad decisions regarding products are made a day.

Similarly, gaffers here may think it will lead to less, influenced by what they secretively hope (or not so secretively lol), but the reality could be different

 

[FacelessSamurai]

game is way overpriced anyway so people who wait for a sale are doing it right

I bought the game on Xbox One and finished it in one sitting, played the next day to get 100% and have every intention on doing another play through and in no way I thought it wasn't worth every penny!

Game is an amazing and polished experience and in no way overpriced.

 

[horkrux]

... and the company behind Denuvo providing authentication servers in the future isn't a gamble for the paying customer?

It's just less of a gamble. Keeping up servers versus actively supporting your software by updating it in case it incompatibilities arise? Do the math. SecuROM and SafeDisc were dropped, even though the companies are still alive afaik. So as long as Denuvo stay in business it is almost a given that the games will continue to work as well as they would have without the DRM, since there is most likely no need to ever update the system specifically.

 

[Real_Madrid]

You want DRM in the games just to spite other people? That sounds like weird priorities to me.

Why is that? I hate pirates (and honestly also dislike all the excuses for piracy) and because of that I like that there is a DRM that works for SP gaming.

 

[Real_Madrid]

How sales can be irrelevant?

This is a business, money comes from sales, not from people not pirating a game.

Some people in these Denuvo/piracy threads always bring up games like Witcher 3 and in this case Limbo, to "prove" that DRM isn't needed.

 

[LittleBuddy]

From the Denuvo games I have played I don't see a problem with this, I've never been effected negatively by it, til that day I'm all for a company protecting their IP as long as it doesn't effect the customer.

 

[spineduke]

Some people in these Denuvo/piracy threads always bring up games like Witcher 3 and in this case Limbo, to "prove" that DRM isn't needed.

i know right? a real kick in the rear when someone shows actual evidence of how DRM has nothing to do with sales.

 

[Real_Madrid]

If the point isn't to improve sales, then what is the point?

The point is to prevent piracy, and thus leading to improved sales.

By the way, I'm pretty sure publishers like Ubisoft and EA would implement Denuvo even if it had no improved sales, just to prevent people from playing their games illegally for free.

 

[Real_Madrid]

i know right? a real kick in the rear when someone shows actual evidence of how DRM has nothing to do with sales.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, that Limbo has a few million users on Steam, is proof that DRM has nothing to do with sales?

 

[BearPawB]

You can't bring up games that didn't have DRM and say "SEE THEY SOLD" as some sort of valid evidence that piracy doesn't effect sales.

You can't just compare across games.
And you have no idea how many copies they would sell if they hadn't.

It's an argument without any backing at all

 

[spineduke]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, that Limbo has a few million users on Steam, is proof that DRM has nothing to do with sales?

yes, the absence or presence of DRM does nothing to "protect" sales. There are no lost sales.

 

[BearPawB]

yes, the absence or presence of DRM does nothing to "protect" sales. There are no lost sales.

This is what I am talking about.
This is a completely nonsensical/unscientific statement.

You have no idea how much more it could have sold.

Maybe it is zero.

But you don't know that. and have no evidence of it

 

[MUnited83]

You can't bring up games that didn't have DRM and say "SEE THEY SOLD" as some sort of valid evidence that piracy doesn't effect sales.

You can't just compare across games.
And you have no idea how many copies they would sell if they hadn't.

It's an argument without any backing at all

You can observe trends across several games though. Thats a lot more backing than the opposite view seems to have.

 

[prudislav]

SecuROM and SafeDisc were dropped, even though the companies are still alive afaik. So as long as Denuvo stay in business it is almost a given that the games will continue to work as well as they would have without the DRM, since there is most likely no need to ever update the system specifically.

just FYI SonyDADC (SecuRom) and Denuvo is pretty much same team (management buyout iirc) and they still own and sell securom (iirc Tales games had some account-based version of it) and even though they are alive/renamed they still dropped it

 

[spineduke]

This is what I am talking about.
This is a completely nonsensical/unscientific statement.

You have no idea how much more it could have sold.

Maybe it is zero.

But you don't know that. and have no evidence of it

If you look at the performance of all the Denuvo titles, not just one or two examples, you'll find no major anomaly in their financial performance that suggests that the DRM helped them outperform similar past titles. None with any major statistical significance. It means DRM either has no effect, or more likely a minor effect on the market. The fact that there are multiple Denuvo games on market only strengthens the arguement.

 

[Gitaroo]

Didn't Adr1ft sold like 16000 copies even with denuvo. Maybe the game is just bad.

 

[Gaogaogao]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, that Limbo has a few million users on Steam, is proof that DRM has nothing to do with sales?

steam drm on its own is ineffectual.

 

[holygeesus]

Some devs respect their customers.

Lol EA don't use it for every game so that dispels that theory.

If it has no negative effect on the running of the game I can't see the problem. We are living in a world where the majority are buying their games digitally so you will always be relying on a 3rd party in terms of preserving the legacy of gaming, even if you ignore Denuvo. Though if people are also not buying on Steam I will accept their stance, otherwise I don't get it. If Valve go bust tomorrow you are still going to have to rely on cracks to play your games.