[BoorishBears]

Not everything has to be a fallacy, I remember when people understood the concept of tongue-in-cheek.

DRM (10NES) was a core part of the strategy for the console that brought a recovery from the 1983 video game crash.

And even today publishers value a platform that is able to combat privacy (see: Denuovo and the lengths AAA productions go to delay piracy in PC.

[reality_czech]

Yes, publishers do certainly value a platform that is able to combat privacy. Although lately the combat has been a little one-sided.

[boomboomsubban]

>DRM (10NES) was a core part of the strategy for the console that brought a recovery from the 1983 video game crash.

About 1/3rd of the consoles sold didn't contain the DRM, yet the Japanese market still saw similar growth.

Publishers value Denuovo, is there any proof that it helps sales?

[BoorishBears]

1/3rd of the units sold? Or 1/3rd of the types of consoles? I know several consoles of the era also had DRM, so I’d be curious which ones youre referring to and the time period if referring to 1/3rd sold.

And if Denuovo actually helps sales is not an easy question to answer since no publisher has come out and said it (that I’ve seen).

The premise seems sound enough, sales follow an “inverse hockey stick”, so design DRM meant to delay cracking instead of stop it and you can get more time with maximum interest and sales, with no easy piracy options.

A few times it’s fallen in hours, and pirates started to write it off, but just recently Far Cry 5's implementation lasted weeks, which seems to be what they’re going for (some versions even lasted months on end).

One could argue no pirates would buy instead of wait, and one could argue all pirates would buy instead of wait, but both would be wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle, publishers have evaluated that question and apparently the answer is something they like enough to keep shaving margins for

[baud147258]

If I remember right, DOOM and the latest Tomb Raider used Denuvo and they weren't cracked until a few weeks after release, but they did not report sales above the norm.

[BoorishBears]

Are those digital sales? Usually I see numbers quoted as tracking physical sales, which don’t tell the whole story.

And I still feel only publishers would be able to tell what the “norm” is. They have better insight into what their “norm” is in terms of returns for development and marketing based on game type, release date, and tons of other factors that can’t be correlated casually

[boomboomsubban]

Sorry for the late reply

>1/3rd of the units sold? Or 1/3rd of the types of consoles? I know several consoles of the era also had DRM, so I’d be curious which ones youre referring to and the time period if referring to 1/3rd sold.

The Famicom did not have the DRM, and accounts for about a third of the total Nintendo sales. That market did not suffer because of the presence of piracy.

As for Denuovo, why would publishers hide data showing it works? And the base capitalism answer doesn't work,continuing to use aggressive DRM gives them information and a power over users that may not directly show a profit.

The rest of your arguments ignore the sales piracy brings because more people talking about it, an effective advertising, and the people who use piracy as a true demo.