They do not state the methodology used (paywalled is the same as not existent to me).
So probably it’s just not true.
Hmmm, I’m also curious about their methods as there really isn’t a clean way to do this. They seem unaffiliated with anyone and isn’t paid for my anyone (seems more like a person trying to get another notch on their CV) but unfortunately the research is behind a paywall.
I know a lot of statistical models, and the only decent one I can think of are propensity score models that, put simply, try to match a game with denuvo with it’s nearest neighbor in a database, paired based on a variety of attributes. For example, Game A has cracked denuvo, Game B wasn’t cracked, matched on review score, price, and any other forward facing and easily quantifiable metric.
Those models aren’t without their flaws, though, and the attributes you pair with could be any variety of things and make it really easy to say whatever the hell you want with the data. There’s always something you’re missing, which is especially true if you’re looking at denuvo vs none.
Also 99% chance this guy probably isn’t even that rigorous in their method. CV fluffing, you usually don’t have time for that.
Edit: also the journal is in isn’t well regarded, although there aren’t many top tier journals that are that specific.
Note to studios: there is no amount of potential, unrealised profit that makes it ethical to install malware on another person’s computer.
If a game has Denuvo, I will just not buy it. Ever. I won’t even consider it until it’s removed. Thankfully it doesn’t happen too often that games that interest me have it, but it does happen.
Since this can’t be quantified, because there is no real way to get numbers on people that do this or similar things (except for “wild guessing”), three big ones (being public or backed by traditional investors) can’t make an argument for not having it. So here we are.
I wonder how much of that 20% is due to “Game X Denuvo has been cracked” headlines bringing attention to the fact its using Denuvo?
I’m not going to purchase the document to find out, and the abstract doesn’t really cover it, but I’m curious what the methodology was here. I seriously doubt that piracy is that prevalent. It’s possible that people are upset with certain companies and aim to pirate their games, and the fact that those companies are the same ones that use Denuvo is happenstance. It’s also possible that they’re using total downloads of pirated copies vs. total sales as their statistic, which is misleading, because I’d wager the majority of folks who pirate the game would not have purchased it if it wasn’t available to download for free.
I’d also be curious if the price of the game was a factor; I imagine more people are looking to pirate a game priced at $70 than one priced at $40, for example.
Really, there’s too many factors to consider here and I don’t think there’s a reasonable way to say how many folks who pirated a given game actually would have purchased it.
Not many companies release this number, the only one I remember is of World of Goo, which is pretty old now. They mentioned that there was about 90% piracy rate for their game.
Other studies have shown that piracy actually leads to increased sales in video games. Very curious to know who funded this study. I bet they’re linked to big game publishers and/or Denuvo themselves.
I once pirated Cuphead and loved it so much that I felt bad not supporting and buying it. It was only after First Isle.
I pirated NieR Automata having absolutely no idea anything about Yoko Taro or his games.
Long story short, I bought NieR Automata 7 times, NieR Replicant 1.22 3 times, imported a Japanese copy of NieR Gestalt and bought it on the Xbox backwards compatibility store, and spent money on the mobile gacha game not even for characters, but literally just to give Square my money and say “I want more Yoko Taro games.”
Nobody can ever convince me that piracy causes companies to lose money long term if they actually make a good product. Piracy is the best thing consumers can do to protect themselves from a bad purchase, and trying to prevent it is a predatory practice to increase sales to people who then cannot return the product for a refund if they don’t like it.
Sometimes I wonder to myself: why pay in advance? Why can’t we get back our money because something is not good as we thought it would be? You pirated an ebook? You can buy it after reading if you enjoyed it. A game? Same. And so on.
In elementary school, back in the days when only 2 or so kids in a class had a computer I learned to pirate software, games, and movies my parents said we didn’t have money for. By highschool having a computer was more common and I became one of the nerd heroes by teaching others how to pirate games and avoid viruses, and save their allowance/meager part time pay.
Once I had my first decently paying ‘real’ job I just bought my own games on steam and while a lot of friends stopped gaming they still bought movies and eventually netflix subscriptions because it was cheap, easy, and had customer support included. Now everything is becoming shit again so all the corporate types are inventing bullshit reasons for the losses they created on their own.
It’s possible that people are upset with certain companies and aim to pirate their games
I’m kinda the opposite. I won’t even pirate some companies games because those company’s suck that much…ea and Ubisoft being major players in the slop I don’t even pirate.
I will pirate almost every other game though, as a full version demo. If it’s good, or I boot it up more then once I tend to buy it. Otherwise, I won’t even give it a second though.
The 2 hour refund window is sometimes not enough time to find out how trash a game is, so I use my above full version demo method.
I wonder how much they lose just from it having Denuvo in general…
That got lost in the wild. Also funny that shitier experience is more expensive than seeking for a better one for free. I remember it with Hogwarts Legacy when Denuvo free version got less frame drops and more FPS than Denuvo countetpart.
I doubt they’ll ever admit it, or even look into it.
Even if it’s not, dunovu results in a 100% loss of my interest, and I will not spend money on it
In fact even after its removed I am much less likely to buy it than I was before it was added
The let’s go and work on it!
This is of course assuming they wouldn’t have had those extra 20% of sales if they went without.
Someone should try a comparison to release on one platform with the DRM and also on GOG with a discount for the amount the DRM would have otherwise added to the price and see which sells better.
I normally play games on quite a lag. I don’t have much free time, and there are lots of good games. I basically never buy games that aren’t 75% off or more.
But when I saw Baldur’s Gate 3 was on GOG, I bought it straight away, as it had great reviews, it’s full price seemed very reasonable, and if AAA publishers are putting recent games on GOG I want to support that.
Defiantly, GOG is the first choice here old or new even if it’s cheaper elsewhere just to support that model.
You’d need to account for size differences too.
Like Steam vs GOG would have steam winning hands down
Yeah, that’s the tough part. I would say base it on those who use both platforms but I suspect those who use multiple platforms tend to use a primary first and others if they can’t find it. Maybe a survey when you buy it asking why you chose this format could help?
And the race is on!
