[BrenBarn]

> My source is first and second hand reports from management of game companies having worked in the industry for decades. But, they don’t make numbers like that public.

As an aside, I find this kind of behavior on the part of companies rather irritating. It's like, if you want people to believe that something affects your sales, you need to publicly release the sales data (and do so in a way that people will trust). Otherwise there's no reason for anyone to believe you're not just making stuff up.

[sokoloff]

Why would they care if you or I believe them or not?

[BrenBarn]

I didn't say you or me, I said anyone. They need someone to believe them, otherwise no one will care when they complain about lost sales.

[sokoloff]

That’s my point: they don’t need people to care.

They just need law makers to support IP/DRM laws that allow them to continue to operate. (I made games for a while at a small studio; I understand some of the pressures that studios are under and don’t support piracy of games.)

And they can get that support without publicly releasing detailed time-series sales data.

[fc417fc802]

It doesn't add up though. If they were actually dependent on DRM as described then broad public support would be a massive benefit to them. Yet seemingly none of the many studios out there publicize such data. And this comment section is full of hand waving about "well I can't provide actual data but I talked to someone who said ..." it sure looks like BS to me.

[sokoloff]

What form would this “massive benefit” take?

What change would their CFO see on their spreadsheets from this massive benefit?