Support NeoGAF

[holygeesus]

As said before, there are interesting games coming out then you have time to play, so things like this changes how you prioritize.

A lot of us will most likely by it later on, but a lot of the will to buy the games quickly for full price is lost.

How is waiting for a price drop any more likely to dissuade companies from using Denuvo though? It also doesn't solve the issue of future game preservation at all. I accept fully that people have different priorities for choosing one game over another, but I don't understand people using the DRM used as some kind of deciding factor, when it will still be there later on anyway. If that stops people from buying a game at launch then they couldn't have been that interested in the game to start with, so why the fuss over the DRM used?

 

[Alo81]

A good game should be played on the principle that it's good.

A good game should sure, but a game is also a product like anything else. I'm sure if the game didn't require paying to access people would be willing to try it. But thats not what it is, people need to put money into it as well.

People are free to judge it on the merits of its entirety, and the effects of DRM have a large enough impact that its worth considering in the decision of whether to purchase or not.

 

[Turin Turambar]

You know, what it's strange to me is why we are having this conversation now, with freaking Inside, and not when Doom was released. Or Total War: Warhammer, or the last Far Cry, or Dragon Age: Inquistion, or Batman: AK, or the last Mirror's Edge, etc etc.


Also, people who are saying they won't buy the game because of Denuvo or that they will buy it in two years for cheap, I hope they won't be hypocrites applying a different stance when the next Dragon age or Mass Effect Andromeda is released. Or when Halo or Forza finally comes to pc. Or Dishonored 2, or the next Fallout, or the next Dawn of War, or Watch Dogs 2, etc etc.

Right now EA, MS and Ubisoft has used Denuvo in several games and Bethesda and Sega has started using it too (with success, so it wouldn't be weird if their next games also start using it)..

 

[sirap]

A good game should be played on the principle that it's good.

If you want to punish someone for Denuvo, maybe try a bigger company than can afford to lose everyone's money.

The developers made a choice to include Denuvo in the hopes that it would prevent piracy. If folks decide to skip their game because of this, they'll have to live with it.

Besides, we're probably the minority...I doubt they'll lose a lot of sales over this.

How is waiting for a price drop any more likely to dissuade companies from using Denuvo though? It also doesn't solve the issue of future game preservation at all. I accept fully that people have different priorities for choosing one game over another, but I don't understand people using the DRM used as some kind of deciding factor, when it will still be there later on anyway. If that stops people from buying a game at launch then they couldn't have been that interested in the game to start with, so why the fuss over the DRM used?

Can't speak for others, but for me, buying a Denuvo game on sale means that if something does go wrong, I know that I wont be losing out on a lot of cash.

 

[CecilRousso]

You know, what it's strange to me is why we are having this conversation now, with freaking Inside, and not when Doom was released. Or Total War: Warhammer, or the last Far Cry, or Dragon Age: Inquistion, or Batman: AK, or the last Mirror's Edge, etc etc.


Also, people who are saying they won't buy the game because of Denuvo or that they will buy it in two years for cheap, I hope they won't be hypocrites applying a different stance when the next Dragon age or Mass Effect Andromeda is released. Or when Halo or Forza finally comes to pc. Or Dishonored 2, or the next Fallout, or the next Dawn of War, or Watch Dogs 2, etc etc.

Right now EA, MS and Ubisoft has used Denuvo in several games and Bethesda and Sega has started using it too (with success, so it wouldn't be weird if their next games also start using it)..

We have had the conversation before.

 

[Speevy]

A good game should sure, but a game is also a product like anything else. I'm sure if the game didn't require paying to access people would be willing to try it. But thats not what it is, people need to put money into it as well.

People are free to judge it on the merits of its entirety, and the effects of DRM have a large enough impact that its worth considering in the decision of whether to purchase or not.

I think the game is being put up as a symbol of something people already don't like, and instead of just playing the damn thing, they're blaming the developer.

A product is a bundle of benefits for the consumer. I personally don't think that the game should be 20 bucks, but 15. That extra 5 dollars means more to me than an invisible program that won't stop me from playing the game.

Now, let's look at the things that could happen with DRM.

1) People who buy the game on Steam in 5 years can't play it because Denuvo doesn't work anymore for whatever reason.
2) People who make small changes to their computer are unable to access the game despite it being installed on their system.
3) People who like having a collection of DRM-free games, such as those on GOG, now find themselves without a setup file for this game.

These are all valid concerns, but none of that has happened yet. Those who offer pirated versions of games on torrent websites are still winning 1,000,000 to 1. And we're bitching at the one party who actually had the nerve to make a good game.

Is that game worth the price? It seems pretty good to me, but time will tell.
Is it worth the headache? There is no headache.

So play it. Don't penalize it on principle.

 

[spineduke]

You know, what it's strange to me is why we are having this conversation now, with freaking Inside, and not when Doom was released. Or Total War: Warhammer, or the last Far Cry, or Dragon Age: Inquistion, or Batman: AK, or the last Mirror's Edge, etc etc.


Also, people who are saying they won't buy the game because of Denuvo or that they will buy it in two years for cheap, I hope they won't be hypocrites applying a different stance when the next Dragon age or Mass Effect Andromeda is released. Or when Halo or Forza finally comes to pc. Or Dishonored 2, or the next Fallout, or the next Dawn of War, or Watch Dogs 2, etc etc.

Right now EA, MS and Ubisoft has used Denuvo in several games and Bethesda and Sega has started using it too (with success, so it wouldn't be weird if their next games also start using it)..

I guess because this is the first indie title to use such a DRM. I don't care too much about the AAA scene, but the same points were raised there.

People who are saying they'll get it on the cheap, means they recognize that such DRM devalues the product to the point where they're only ready to pay dirt cheap as they recognize it doesn't have a long term value. Buy it cheap in the knowledge it won't run one day on a newer Windows platform (hello Starforce), or when the publisher/developer bite the dust.

These are all valid concerns, but none of that has happened yet.
So play it. Don't penalize it on principle.

It's already happened with previous DRM schemes (GFWL, Starforce etc). I'm speaking from being burnt in the past - and it's a valid decision to consider how much devaluing a game undergoes when associated with such DRM. A game is $60 on the basis that you can play it indefinitely, or only for 5 years from now on? What sounds more valuable to the consumer?

 

[MUnited83]

You know, what it's strange to me is why we are having this conversation now, with freaking Inside, and not when Doom was released. Or Total War: Warhammer, or the last Far Cry, or Dragon Age: Inquistion, or Batman: AK, or the last Mirror's Edge, etc etc.


Also, people who are saying they won't buy the game because of Denuvo or that they will buy it in two years for cheap, I hope they won't be hypocrites applying a different stance when the next Dragon age or Mass Effect Andromeda is released. Or when Halo or Forza finally comes to pc. Or Dishonored 2, or the next Fallout, or the next Dawn of War, or Watch Dogs 2, etc etc.

Right now EA, MS and Ubisoft has used Denuvo in several games and Bethesda and Sega has started using it too (with success, so it wouldn't be weird if their next games also start using it)..

This conversation has been done dozen of times, you can feel free to use the search function.

 

[SmartWaffles]

I guess because this is the first indie title to use such a DRM. I don't care too much about the AAA scene, but the same points were raised there.

People who are saying they'll get it on the cheap, means they recognize that such DRM devalues the product to the point where they're only ready to pay dirt cheap as they recognize it doesn't have a long term value. Buy it cheap in the knowledge it won't run one day on a newer Windows platform (hello Starforce), or when the publisher/developer bite the dust.

If I were Playdead, perservation and whether Denuvo would be around for next couple years will not be my concern. As a 25 man company that spent the past six years making a game, my first concern would be surviving and make sure my hard worked product don't get robbed for free.

It's funny that, in China, the most notorious pirating country, the existence of Denuvo as a non-invasive and effective DRM solution is much much welcomed in the growing core community that does not pirate games.

 

[spineduke]

If I were Playdead, perservation and whether Denuvo would be around for next couple years will not be my concern. As a 25 man company that spent the past six years making a game, my first concern would be surviving and make sure my hard worked product don't get robbed for free.

That's under the belief that DRM will magically turn all those pirates into buying customers. Sound strategy. Does DRM increase their purchasing power and the size of their wallets?

 

[SmartWaffles]

That's under the belief that DRM will magically turn all those pirates into buying customers. Sound strategy. Does DRM increase their purchasing power and the size of their wallets?

Have been posted before, some indie developer openly stated piracy does affect their sales. Indies suffer more so than big publishers. Jonathan Blow of Braid and The Witness fame stated the same. I don't like DRMs as much as you were but again, I will tolerate small indie developers trying to protect their work.

 

[spineduke]

Have been posted before, some indie developer openly stated piracy does affect their sales. Indies suffer more so than big publishers. Jonathan Blow of Braid and The Witness fame stated the same. I don't like DRMs as much as you were but again, I will tolerate small indie developers trying to protect their work.

Just because a developer says it, doesn't mean it's automatically true. Show me how a pirated copy is a lost sale.

 

[Durante]

A good game should be played on the principle that it's good.

I have about 100 good games in my Steam library waiting to be played. I can afford to tailor my purchasing decisions according to principles which are important to me.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Just because a developer says it, doesn't mean it's automatically true. Show me how a pirated copy is a lost sale.

Show me how it isn't either. It is a myth at this point and both side have things to say about it. And I personally would always assume the worse when it comes to piracy. It's funny that people can assume the DRM will be dead in years to come but refuse to think piracy hurt developer revenue.

 

[Speevy]

Think about it this way.

Indie developers are inherently biased against DRM. It goes against the entire idea of independence from larger publishers.

So Playdead must have really noticed some piracy to take this stance.

I have actually noticed that in another thread, we had users saying things like "Piracy helps the industry." and they had dozens of people backing them up.

I just can't support that, not for one second.

 

[Durante]

Well, other indie developers manage just fine with no strong DRM, or often no DRM at all.

 

[spineduke]

Show me how it isn't either. It is a myth at this point and both side have things to say about it. And I personally would always assume the worse when it comes to piracy. It's funny that people can assume the DRM will be dead in years to come but refuse to think piracy hurt developer revenue.

There are now multiple case examples to look at now with Denuvo in the fray - no Denuvo games have performed with any significant sales variance than similar titles in the past. Where is the increase that the publishers are supposed to benefit from? Where are all the new paying customers now that DRM is doing what it's supposed to do?

 

[CecilRousso]

How is waiting for a price drop any more likely to dissuade companies from using Denuvo though? It also doesn't solve the issue of future game preservation at all. I accept fully that people have different priorities for choosing one game over another, but I don't understand people using the DRM used as some kind of deciding factor, when it will still be there later on anyway. If that stops people from buying a game at launch then they couldn't have been that interested in the game to start with, so why the fuss over the DRM used?

I'm not trying to solve all problems, thats not my job. But I am taking the stance thats a game with Denuvo is worth less to me then games without.

It hasnt stopped me from the buying the game, but it has made me less interested.

 

[holygeesus]

Can't speak for others, but for me, buying a Denuvo game on sale means that if something does go wrong, I know that I wont be losing out on a lot of cash.

Denuvo has no impact on whether or not a game will 'go wrong'. I've had no issues with any Denuvo-protected game I've played, and in the last hour I bought, installed and played Inside without issue. Game installs without issue, loads quickly and plays fine. No problems at all.

 

[Social]

The biggest problem in this debate is the fact that there can't be an honest debate about piracy because of bans. As soon as someone openly admits to piracy on here, it's account suicide. But it's an important part of the discussion to determine the proper answer to the "lost sale" question.

If we could properly find that out amongst a diverse userbase like Neogaf, we could put that debate to rest.

 

[_machine]

That's under the belief that DRM will magically turn all those pirates into buying customers. Sound strategy. Does DRM increase their purchasing power and the size of their wallets?

There are now multiple case examples to look at now with Denuvo in the fray - no Denuvo games have performed with any significant sales variance than similar titles in the past. Where is the increase that the publishers are supposed to benefit from? Where are all the new paying customers now that DRM is doing what it's supposed to do?

Hate to quote myself, but again, you're completely off-base in your analysis and expectations. Even a marginal increase in conversion would be very positive effect, but you keep expecting something completely unrealistic, which makes your argument meaningless:

None of you are even remotely close to realizing how the statistics on this work.

You absolutely can't observe "trends" on such a high level and then attribute it all whether it has or has not DRM. There are way too many variable for proper attribution, and historical data has much too noise for you even achieve a reliable p-value at ridiculously high expectation for uplift. Same goes if you want to prove that it has no effect. Unless you can A/B-test it, sales data like Steamspy simply won't cut it, unless DRM would achieve impossibly high conversion rate, which it certainly does not.

Which brings me to the second point, which is your expectations. Most of you keep repeating the word "significant effect", so please tell me what's your expectation. 10% increase in sales? 5% conversion of pirates? What you don't seem to realize, that even a relatively marginal percentage, like 0.5% conversion or 1% effect in sales would be a considerable uplift in revenue, and surely worth the cost of the DRM (including license and implementation). But that scale of effect is something that you certainly can't prove reliably with data available to the public.

So in short, if you want to actually prove anything, first read a bit on the basics of statistical analysis and tests, and temper your expectations to a realistic level that would be profitable for a publisher.

So I can hear you ask how do you then prove the effect? Well, first step is to prove that piracy does not have an effect on sales (proving the opposite is easier, than it being true), which you can contact a few actual statistics companies like EEDAR or SuperData. Or if you have already been able to find correlation (not causation) between the availability of a pirated version and a change in your measurement, you can already know that there is correlation. Case in point:


I can also vouch for this drop from first hand experience of seeing sales curves, but because nearly all sales data is bound by platform agreements and publishers interests, you will not see this data publically.

So based on what you already know, and being able to track for example share of pirates showing up in your metrics, you can quite reliably know whether there is an effect or not. That should be comparable against the cost of the including DRM, so if the system is being retained after a few uses, in today's data driven environment it would be safe to say it's because publishers/developers can quantify a net positive effect on their revenue.

Now, I as a consumer don't especially like any form of DRM and certainly care very much about preserving games for my own enjoyment and for the future of our industry. But, it's very much a complex matter of factors that both affect both developers and consumers negatively and positively. So, for the sake of discussion I don't really have a personal stance one way or the other, but I can confidently say that there is absolutely an effect that if diminished, can easily result in a quantifiable net positive for the developer/publisher.

The biggest problem in this debate is the fact that there can't be an honest debate about piracy because of bans. As soon as someone openly admits to piracy on here, it's account suicide. But it's an important part of the discussion to determine the proper answer to the "lost sale" question.

If we could properly find that out amongst a diverse userbase like Neogaf, we could put that debate to rest.

Not really; NeoGAF as a source for any viable data would be pointless. First because as a sample size it's way too tiny, and secondly because it doesn't contain all necessary segments of usertypes. If you can tell me how you can run any statistical test on data found in neogaf posts, please correct me, but I see arguing the effect being there at all with data and analysis presented here as completely pointless. Besides, developers already know there is at least a correlation, which makes it even more pointless.

 

[CecilRousso]

Hate to quote myself, but again, you're completely off-base in your analysis and expectations. Even a marginal increase in conversion would be very positive effect, but you keep expecting something completely unrealistic, which makes your argument meaningless:

Are those expectations any more unrealistic then the propagande we've been hearing throughout the years from publishers, devs and anyone talking about the effects expected if we could eradicate piracy? I for one don't remember a single instance of any dev or publisher saying that if piracy went away they expected a slight increase in sales?

 

[TheHellsLord]

I thought Steam was effectively its own DRM. Why would you need something like this?

Because Denuvo itself is not DRM. Denuvo protects the binary so that the actual DRM can't be removed. So basically Denuvo makes sure that Steam's DRM does not get patched out.

 

[holygeesus]

Are those expectations any more unrealistic then the propagande we've been hearing throughout the years from publishers, devs and anyone talking about the effects expected if we could eradicate piracy? I for one don't remember a single instance of any dev or publisher saying that if piracy went away they expected a slight increase in sales?

Why has Jonathan Blow gone on record as saying he will have to consider DRM on his next title because of the impact of piracy?

 

[CecilRousso]

Why has Jonathan Blow gone on record as saying he will have to consider DRM on his next title because of the impact of piracy?

Ask him? It's really only related to what you quoted if he talked about how much he thought he would gain with it.

 

[holygeesus]

Ask him? It's really only related to what you quoted if he talked about how much he thought he would gain with it.

Well you would think the only reason he would consider it, is because he saw how many copies of The Witness were in circulation on piracy sites mere days after it launched. Nobody is saying every pirated copy is a lost sale, but you can't say that none of the 20,000 + people who copied it during those days, wouldn't have bought a copy if it hadn't been available for nothing.

I go back to a previous point. If there was no financial benefit to employing Denuvo, smaller developers wouldn't do it, as they themselves admit to not liking it. Jonathan Blow himself has said 'he prefers people to own the games they buy'. If someone with that attitude admits to having to consider DRM then there must be a financial need to do so.

 

[Corpekata]

I'm not sure what point you're getting at by lumping Playdead in with Blow. Indie devs aren't some amorphous blob where you can attribute every stereotype or thought you have about them to Playdead. ESPECIALLY in this case where they are the outlier and the only indie dev to have done this, while 90 percent of the other indie success stories of the past year or two have released with DRM free versions.

" If there was no financial benefit to employing Denuvo, smaller developers wouldn't do it"

Again, this is a terrible point to make because SMALL DEVELOPERS HAVEN'T DONE what you just said. Playdead is literally the first to do it, everyone else has been a major publisher, so trying to point to a trend makes no sense.

 

[spineduke]

Hate to quote myself, but again, you're completely off-base in your analysis and expectations. Even a marginal increase in conversion would be very positive effect, but you keep expecting something completely unrealistic, which makes your argument meaningless:

A marginal increase does not offset the secondary negative costs imposed on the gaming ecosystem with such DRM. I don't see how it can become "very positive" because of a decimal point percentage of increase in sales. It's what I've been arguing - that DRM doesn't produce anything but a minute difference in sales. Second, DRM has been pushed and promised as a way for "saving the industry". That rhetoric doesn't match at all with the evidence we're seeing. It's the same publisher logic we've seen with movies, and with music. How much of this is about boosting investor and shareholder confidence?

Again, this is a terrible point to make because SMALL DEVELOPERS HAVEN'T DONE what you just said. Playdead is literally the first to do it, everyone else has been a major publisher, so trying to point to a trend makes no sense.

Playdead have also released a grand total of two titles - Limbo, back in 2010, and Inside in 2016. Limbo was by all means a success, due to it coming out early in the indie scene and being moderately competent as a game. It got way more success than it deserved, but if the motive behind implementing Denuvo is that Limbo could have sold much much more - yeesh...I wouldn't know what to say. Keep your expectations in check?

 

[holygeesus]

Again, this is a terrible point to make because SMALL DEVELOPERS HAVEN'T DONE what you just said. Playdead is literally the first to do it, everyone else has been a major publisher, so trying to point to a trend makes no sense.

I guess we will see if it is the beginning of a trend or not. If Denuvo have changed their pricing policies to make it more considerable a proposition financially for smaller publishers, then it could be massive.

 

[prudislav]

I still thing that monopoly DRM is bad as for itself let alone with the offline play problems i experienced

 

[iNvid02]

I guess we will see if it is the beginning of a trend or not. If Denuvo have changed their pricing policies to make it more considerable a proposition financially for smaller publishers, then it could be massive.

some guy on reddit pretended to be a game dev inquiring about using the drm in his game, found out the pricing tiers.

Lump sum model:
AAA title (bigger 500k units on PC): 100.000 EUR
AA title (smaller 500k units on PC): 50.000 EUR
Indie title (less than 100k units on PC): 10.000 EUR
Or
Per unit pricing:
2.500 EUR setup fee.
0,15 EUR per unit reported monthly based on Steam,… owners.
(optional) cost covering for on-site visit if requested.

 

[mieumieu]

It's funny that, in China, the most notorious pirating country, the existence of Denuvo as a non-invasive and effective DRM solution is much much welcomed in the growing core community that does not pirate games.

I can attest to that, although it could also be due to them wanting to spite pirates. Preservation rarely got brought up either. I don't think many of them has reached the level of consciousness to care about this issue. They just assume games will get rereleased or remastered.

Compared to other really intrusive DRM solutions Chinese single player games use, Denuvo is lightweight enough to be rarely noticed.

 

[spineduke]

some guy on reddit pretended to be a game dev inquiring about using the drm in his game, found out the pricing tiers.

That's interesting.

So as an indie dev (<100k sales) with a game priced at $15 on Steam, after Steam's cut, you'll need roughly 1050 extra sales to cover the license costs. Assuming your average sales are at 100k units before DRM, you'll need a %1.05 increase in sales to meet the additional costs.

 

[Poison_Idea]

Reading through this thread was like reading a gun-control thread

 

[Jacksinthe]

Just because a developer says it, doesn't mean it's automatically true. Show me how a pirated copy is a lost sale.

Considering in previous threads we have seen evidence of sales dropping SHARPLY the DAY a crack/pirated copy hits the internet - I'd say piracy impacts sales for sure.

There is no viewing total sales, only viewing how quickly sales drop when a pirated version becomes available.

This had been shown more than once - plenty of cases that pass the realm of coincidence and into the realm of PATTERNS.

You and others are free to stick your head in the sand and say piracy doesn't impact sales, though!

Not every pirated copy is a lost sale, there are pirates that literally refuse to buy games. Buy you can bet your ass there are pirates who will buy a game they want to play with no other option.

This isn't a new revelation, btw.

 

[Chobel]

some guy on reddit pretended to be a game dev inquiring about using the drm in his game, found out the pricing tiers.

Sounds pretty reasonable pricing to me.

 

[iNvid02]

That's interesting.

So as an indie dev (<100k sales) with a game priced at $15 on Steam, after Steam's cut, you'll need roughly 1050 extra sales to cover the license costs. Assuming your average sales are at 100k units before DRM, you'll need a %1.05 increase in sales to meet the additional costs.

Sounds pretty reasonable pricing to me.

yeah it seems plausible, it makes more sense then '$1 million per game bcuz our drm has proven effective at this point in time, pay up or you'll only get 3 sales'

 

[spineduke]

Considering in previous threads we have seen evidence of sales dropping SHARPLY the DAY a crack/pirated copy hits the internet - I'd say piracy impacts sales for sure.

There is no viewing total sales, only viewing how quickly sales drop when a pirated version becomes available.

This had been shown more than once - plenty of cases that pass the realm of coincidence and into the realm of PATTERNS.

You and others are free to stick your head in the sand and say piracy doesn't impact sales, though!

Sure, mind linking me to such data? I'm ready to have crow served.

 

[M3d10n]

I've lost games to DRM before and my Steam library is full of unplayed titles, so I'll wait for a humble bundle or a $2 sale.

 

[Kurdel]

Good.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Sure, mind linking me to such data? I'm ready to have crow served.

Several devs posted in the Jon Blow Witness piracy thread. I'm on mobile so you'll have to search yourself.

 

[spineduke]

Several devs posted in the Jon Blow Witness piracy thread. I'm on mobile so you'll have to search yourself.

You mean this thread ?. I didn't find anything outside of Blow's tweets saying there were a lot of pirates on The Witness. Perhaps you meant another thread?

 

[holygeesus]

some guy on reddit pretended to be a game dev inquiring about using the drm in his game, found out the pricing tiers.

Very interesting. Thanks.

 

[prudislav]

some guy on reddit pretended to be a game dev inquiring about using the drm in his game, found out the pricing tiers.

i thought this thing was confirmed fake and fabricated ...there was some really suspicious and nonsensical stuff in there

 

[horkrux]

Tales of Zestiriria (used some form of Securom) and Tales of Symphonia (same thing with VMProtect on top before they removed it )

Well, considering that the games still worked regardless, I guess it was something slightly different from before then. Otherwise they would have sold new games, that just wouldn't work unless you cracked them.
Like I said: It is common to drop support for older products so I can't fault them for not updating the older versions.

My entire hope here is that none of this would be necessary with Denuvo and I think there is good reason to believe that.

 

[Chinese Cartoons]

3 hours long and it costs 15 squids.

 

[Luq]

I'm ok with that. This game doesn't deserve being even slightly pirated tbh...

 

[holygeesus]

What has the length of the game got to do with anything? I blazed through it today and it is a masterpiece. I'd rather play a 3 hour game of that standard than a 15 hour mediocre one. Worth every penny.

 

[Jacksinthe]

You mean this thread ?. I didn't find anything outside of Blow's tweets saying there were a lot of pirates on The Witness. Perhaps you meant another thread?

Yup. Not sure which of the 2100+ posts it was but I do recall info posted more than once.

There was a similar discussion in the TinyBuild piracy thread but I didn't follow that thread closely.

Again, this isn't a new revelation. I'm honestly not sifting through every post to find them.

 

[jmga]

There are bypasses already available for almost every game using Denuvo, you just have to buy the game on Steam, extract some files, and request a refund.

Denuvo is going to be pretty useless once pirates learn how to do it.