Originally Posted by keikei
I dont think that assumption is correct. Pirates were never going to buy the game in the first place.
With modern AAA gaming as it now stands all games have some of drm, whether it be some periodic check by software, manditory game registering, or necessary day 1 updates.
Not necessarily. Some people find the majority of games worthless or worth very little compared to their advertised price. It's probably a very small percentage of people that purchase a game after pirating it but these people exist.
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT
You seem a little peeved. Piracy is a great way to distribute a title to get it known. You can't stop pirates.
I'm not in defense of them, but Window's own success was made off the backs of piracy. Games that find unique ways to counter piracy such as account based multi-player understand how to hook a player in and bait them into their universe for genuine profits. You also can't build just a multiplayer title or people will quick grow bored of it, *cough* Titan Fall *cough*.
You're right, it can't be stopped, only slowed down.
I've heard about that before (piracy as a way to increase exposure), not sure if it applied to games (probably was movies) but I think that would be more for relatively unknown/indie type games as AAA games usually have a lot of advertising.
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er
Even those that have money to buy games for PC much rather use that money towards buy a GPU lol.
That's what I said to my friend. All those $60 games he buys, only for single-player, and he has a GTX 970. Told him he could have two 980 Tis but "If it weren't for people like me, people like you wouldn't have any games to pirate in the first place."
Originally Posted by MonarchX
It is easier to buy a game from Steam or somewhere else than to pirate it and forced to deal with cracked files, updated, more cracked files. If you could freely spend $60 on a game, you wouldn't pirate it. If did have $60 that you simply valued higher than the game, then you are likely to pirate it instead. However, that means you didn't have another $60 to freely spend it on a game.
It also depends on whether you think the game is actually worth that much. Witcher 3 is a PERFECT example. The game was DRM-free and it was so good that it really felt wrong to pirate it and a ton of would-be-pirates ended up buying it instead of pirating it or pirating it and then buying it. I bought 2 copies just to support the developers. I will NOT support developers who use Denuvo.
One way or another, Denuvo will be beaten.
That's arguable. Some games have DRM so terrible that the pirated version is actually much less of a hassle to get running. I don't have very many examples myself but when I purchased Far Cry 4 after beating it, it made sense why people pirate games.
I wouldn't agree with your statement saying one would not have another $60 to freely spend etc. I wrote in a previous reply that some people find new games worthless or worth very little. When you pay $60 for a whole 15 minutes of disappointment one too many times then you'd tend to get wary of throwing more money down the drain. Luckily, Steam has implemented returns for <2 hours play time which solves that.
Why not support developers who use Denuvo? It sounds like you're against DRM and
piracy but see the benefits that piracy could bring to sales/exposure.
The end times are near! At least all these Denuvo games so far have been tied with codes. JC3 was tied with the Intel promo, Tomb Raider with the Nvidia promo, FC will probably be tied to an Nvidia promo. Will make them easily obtainable for half their price
Originally Posted by BradleyW
Does this DRM method still cause performance issues as reported when it was first introduced?
This I'd like to know as well.