Here's the source. There's quite a lot of information there, but, no, none of it has been confirmed.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
CTO of Machine Games on Piracy of Wolfenstein II: "you only proved that no drm is a bad idea"
- Thread starter rare
- Start date
Here's the source. There's quite a lot of information there, but, no, none of it has been confirmed.
My personal opinion, living from a third world country which piracy is rampant and even championed, is that piracy affects sales. A lot of my friends download pirated games because it's so easy, some of them release before official release date like the case here. But if they're forced to buy games, like Diablo 3 and WOW for example, they buy it because there's no option to pirate it. Piracy is unfortunately ingrained here that some of my friends discourage me to buy original ones since i'm just wasting money.
That's why these perception here that "those who pirate are done by those who would not purchase the game anyway" is a bit foreign for me and I feel that people said this comes from a country in which piracy isn't rampant. Piracy is a culture here, markets have sections here just for selling pirated games and movie. If people here are forced to buy original games and aren't able to pirate i'm 100% they'll buy it, it's starting already with Blu ray due to how hard that is to pirate.
That's why these perception here that "those who pirate are done by those who would not purchase the game anyway" is a bit foreign for me and I feel that people said this comes from a country in which piracy isn't rampant. Piracy is a culture here, markets have sections here just for selling pirated games and movie. If people here are forced to buy original games and aren't able to pirate i'm 100% they'll buy it, it's starting already with Blu ray due to how hard that is to pirate.
Not now they aren't. Denuvo can be cracked within 10 hours these days. It's effectively dead.
I've actually seen that source, but thanks for the information regardless :) That source says 10k euro (about 13k dollars), and that its also possible to have a setup fee of 2500 euros, and then pay 0.15 euro for each copy sold. So i was curious if there was another source since it was claimed earlier that it was a minimum of 15k dollars for even the smallest games.
The alternative is to not launch on PC. The open platform means that given enough interest, people will circumvent anything. It also seems strange to me to believe that a significant amount of regular pirates, who pay zilch, would suddenly start dropping 60$ left and right. At best they would wait until it's reduced by 75% on Steam.
I get that it must suck as a creator to have people "steal" your work like that, but these games aren't made for PC exclusively anyway. The PC port is just "free" side revenue. Make a great PC version, with cloud saves, and lots of community features, like Workshop support (if it makes sense) and other stuff, and people will buy it. Not everybody, but Steam has a sizeable, active audience. Why cry about hypotheticals like this?
I get that it must suck as a creator to have people "steal" your work like that, but these games aren't made for PC exclusively anyway. The PC port is just "free" side revenue. Make a great PC version, with cloud saves, and lots of community features, like Workshop support (if it makes sense) and other stuff, and people will buy it. Not everybody, but Steam has a sizeable, active audience. Why cry about hypotheticals like this?
But not consistently yet. ACO is a great example that they can tweak something and it could take like a week again.
Concrete examples for
- Preventing me from doing what I want with the product:
If e.g. the frametiming logic is part of the deuvo-protected source regions then it might be much harder or impossible to replace in order to unlock a game's framerate. - Limiting the game's lifespan:
Either required servers could go down, or some component of the DRM fails to work on some future OS.
What did you expect? People don't pirate not just because they think it's morally wrong but because it's illegal. Pirating is ethically wrong if the law of the country where you are doing the copying has a law against such copying. if the country allow it or turn a blind eye then ofcource they'll pirate.
Ah. Yeah, I assume he either rounded up or slightly misremembered the figure. The only explicit mention of $15k I'm aware of is in this eBaum's World article:
I see he deleted his tweet. Everything gets cracked eventually. No matter what. Denuvo doesn't last more than a couple of days anymore, if that. When you shove in something like Denuvo into your game, you are only punishing the legit customers. Maybe the CTO realized that? :P
Doubt it. I'm betting he got some heat from legit customers and didn't really like it :P
I think something that is lost in the consumer angle is the fact that "the lost sale" really isn't the entirety of the desire to use piracy prevention software.
It's the devaluation of the IP. Successful DRM isn't going to convince would be pirates to buy the game. But it IS going to ensure that purchasing the game is the only way to obtain it, which allows publishers to maximize the asking price.
When the game becomes available for free or on a grey market, the OTC sale becomes less valuable.
We've seen this happen already in music. They fact that music could be obtained for free, or for very cheap on the grey market made it impossible for publishers to actually CDs and allowed other to profit off of their material.
I don't think screwing paying consumers over is the answer, but I just want to point out that DRM isn't really about convincing pirates to buy. It's about eliminating the need to compete agaisnt stolen goods.
While I personally hate Denuvo, he isn't wrong. I know that all forms of DRM get cracked eventually, but there has to be something in place to make it slightly more complicated to pirate.
If it's too easy, or DRM free, then yes I think piracy leads to lost sales, it's definitely not a 1 for 1, but it eats into it. At the same time though, you don't want to hurt your paying customers the most. It's a balancing act that I'm sure no developer enjoys, but they have to do what they can to protect their product.
If it's too easy, or DRM free, then yes I think piracy leads to lost sales, it's definitely not a 1 for 1, but it eats into it. At the same time though, you don't want to hurt your paying customers the most. It's a balancing act that I'm sure no developer enjoys, but they have to do what they can to protect their product.
DRM won't solve the problem. I don't support piracy, But I will not buy your game if it has a DRM policy. Simple as that
Being a GAAS is how you stop piracy. No help for single-player games obviously.
I highly doubt it. People either not going to buy the game, or wait for it till it drops below 10$
Isn't there a way to cripple the performance of copies not obtained legally? I thought a few developers did such a thing where illegally downloaded copies had swaying cameras and such?
Again, it's not a 1 for 1, it may even be as low as 5-10%, but you can't tell me that every single person that pirates Wolfenstein 2 wouldn't have bought it if there was no pirated version available.
There's a law here but it isn't enforced and i'm sure a lot of third world country has this problem. I don't like DRM myself but I can understand why the these publishers are doing DRM. I'm sure publishers don't like putting DRM too given the extra cost but again like all businesses they have to cover their ass. Personally I don't want DRM on games because in the end of the day, it's the legit customers that are affected.
Prestige on scene, which is competitive in a way, as well as a challenge to their own skills.
The only middle ground a customer is expected to come forth with is money.
The only thing you're gonna achieve that way is stopping people from buying your product, because people will complain about these issues, and people will see others complaining about these issues, without anyone knowing these issues are coming from a pseudo softDRM
If you willfully ignore the long history of pcgames with DRM, then yes, it's only a theoretical as of now, in a vacuum were we look at Denuvo and Denuvo exclusively, pretending half a dozen of earlier DRM system's didn't happen.
If a person skips a game because they can't steal it, the publisher loses nothing.
If a person waits to buy a copy the publisher still gets a sale.
So based on your scenario there is net value in preventing piracy.
Last edited:
It's a never ending fight. The trick is to make a good product that captures the attention of people like me that are philosophically opposed to piracy. If you get enough of those, you will be solid financially.
On a counter-argument, by eliminating piracy altogether you may eliminate future costumers who would might buy the sequel (or any other game from the developer) due to having a great time with the pirated product. You also eliminate "free word of mouth" positive marketing (aka friend talks to other friends about the game, other friend may buy the game). It could be an extra 5%-10% of lost sales.
See where I'mm going here? That's why EU didn't find any proof that piracy leads to loss of sales in their studies.
Such a devicive topic. On one hand DRM sees to be a big issue for gamers for a myriad of reasons from performance to phone home always on mechanics and on the other The developers who's lilevlyhood is based on sales can be negatively affected.
I know people who pirate simply due to the economics of gaming especially at this time of year with multiple AAA titles releasing around the same timeframe. They buy one and pirate two or three others so they "don't miss out"
I think a combination of things can help reduce piracy. Scatter releases throughout the year when people have more disposable income. Not many people can afford 5-6 full priced AAA games in a two month span.
I've always had the and idea that would drastically reduce the initial piracy of games sales in the form of a pre-order. Companies love to get these before a game releases and most offer some stupid dlc that amounts to nothing as encentives. How about preorder price Windows?
Preorder between Date X and Y and get the game for $39.99. I would venture to say that people on the fence and in general would buy your game more often with a real encentive to preorder.
I mean 30 days after launch most titles are temporarily dropped to 39.99 anyway so the lost revenue position isn't valid.
It's a tough subject and until an all digital streaming society is a reality pitarcy will continue so the best bet in countering them is pricing IMHO.
I know people who pirate simply due to the economics of gaming especially at this time of year with multiple AAA titles releasing around the same timeframe. They buy one and pirate two or three others so they "don't miss out"
I think a combination of things can help reduce piracy. Scatter releases throughout the year when people have more disposable income. Not many people can afford 5-6 full priced AAA games in a two month span.
I've always had the and idea that would drastically reduce the initial piracy of games sales in the form of a pre-order. Companies love to get these before a game releases and most offer some stupid dlc that amounts to nothing as encentives. How about preorder price Windows?
Preorder between Date X and Y and get the game for $39.99. I would venture to say that people on the fence and in general would buy your game more often with a real encentive to preorder.
I mean 30 days after launch most titles are temporarily dropped to 39.99 anyway so the lost revenue position isn't valid.
It's a tough subject and until an all digital streaming society is a reality pitarcy will continue so the best bet in countering them is pricing IMHO.
With movies and games the piracy has effect on sales. Ironically, most pirates still pirate it and refuse to pay for it even if the content is available fast and cheap (For example if you can get Game of Thrones almost immediately after it airs in the US in Nordic countries by paying 10 euros a month with subtitles, HD and 5.1. sound, I don't think that's expensive, hard to use or slow) . Piracy isn't just a third world problem either, but it's rampant in more wealthier countries. I know many that pirate stuff just because they can. Sometimes they end up purchasing these items, most times not. And they could be classified as very high income as well.
Edit: Since the EU study is being mentioned, it's worth noting that the EU study only researched some countries of EU, not the whole union and the study also found that piracy may have positive effect in 2-4% of cases.
Edit: Since the EU study is being mentioned, it's worth noting that the EU study only researched some countries of EU, not the whole union and the study also found that piracy may have positive effect in 2-4% of cases.
Last edited:
I see where you're going, and we obviously don't have any concrete data, but I just think it's a stretch to say that piracy has zero financial impact on a game's sales, or that publishers should just expect to make that money back on sequels.
Not saying every single person. That would be absurd. But I don't think it's even close to be 10% of real sales.
Pretty sure that publishers profit from the initial sale price "full price". When the price drops they do still get profit but I don't think that happens in this scenario when a 60$ Title hits 10$
For digital, publishers get a percent of the asking price- which decreases overtime. If someone waits for a $60 title to hit $10, the publisher eventually gets $7. Which is better than the alternative, $0.
For the fun/sport of it.
I'm sure most of them have jobs of some sort.
This is why it is hard to be mad about PC not getting launched the same day as consoles. From what I understand console piracy is at a stage where you have to clone a HDD that is at an old firmware and keep your system offline. PC piracy has been the same for decades on the user side.
I mean, I understand his anger. There needs to be a middle ground between DRM like Denuvo that hurts legitimate consumers and no DRM.
It is a gradual curve. This is the core concept behind price elasticity of demand. The less something costs the more consumer demand there will be for the product. Digital distribution has removed the need for elasticity of demand as a variable in production, but it still has a significant role in how products are priced and sold.
So Lets say at $60 absolutely no one willing to pirate the game would buy it. Far fetched to be sure, but even if we go with that as the baseline, we would then reasonably see various increases in "buy in" among those interested but not interested enough parties as the game decreases in price. Maybe 5% buy in at $50. Another 5% at $40. The interest curve then steepens dramatically at $30 or $20, with suddenly 20-30% of the potential pirates buying in. Then by the time the game is $10 you're hitting 90% penetration with all interested parties.
Meanwhile piracy would give those interested parties the game at release, for nothing, under some crazy hypothetical where they'll show the integrity of buying it a year later when it is on sale or buying a sequel (instead of just pirating it, like they did the first game).
This is exactly why DRM is still a thing. No publisher expects their DRM system to remain eternally un-hacked, but if you can buy 6-10 months chances are you'll prevent the vast majority of piracy. Maximizing launch sales is one benefit, but a small one. The real value is maximizing sales in the $20-$40 price ranges as the game ages in the back half of it's first year.
I'd like to see a developer try auto-expiration DRM. Something that within 12 months of release or so is no longer present, making the game entirely DRM free, but protecting the optimal sales window. Unfortunately I think something like that would be seen as an even more stimulating challenge to the people who crack DRM, since it'd be more unique.
The only way DRM affects me is that I don't play the game ever if it has nasty DRM (like Denuvo), or if it's lighter DRM, the price I'm willing to pay goes down to 20-25% or less of what I would usually pay (like Steam DRM); I see it as renting. DRM-free means I may buy full price day one, depending on my interest.
This is the first bad thing I've heard surrounding Wolf II but I'm still glad it doesn't have denuvo.
Edit: This is the second bad thing I've heard then (seeing the below). I'm not surprised it runs poorly. I just finished the first game and it was really problematic in getting it working without crashing all the time, and it's three years old. In game V-sync still doesn't work either, it had to be forced globally. Are bugs mandated by Bethesda or something?
This is the first bad thing I've heard surrounding Wolf II but I'm still glad it doesn't have denuvo.
Edit: This is the second bad thing I've heard then (seeing the below). I'm not surprised it runs poorly. I just finished the first game and it was really problematic in getting it working without crashing all the time, and it's three years old. In game V-sync still doesn't work either, it had to be forced globally. Are bugs mandated by Bethesda or something?
Last edited:
Unfortunately for him, the performance on PC proves that it would be beneficial to pirate before buying.
The game on PC runs terribly, crashes, freezing, audio issues, the list goes on... I haven't seen a game run this poorly on PC in a LONG time, and its not just me having these issues, take a look at the "Wolfenstein PC Performance" thread
The game on PC runs terribly, crashes, freezing, audio issues, the list goes on... I haven't seen a game run this poorly on PC in a LONG time, and its not just me having these issues, take a look at the "Wolfenstein PC Performance" thread
That still means people would have to buy it 6 months in, when pretty much any Denuvo game, since the last few years, had long been broken. Why should pirates buy it for 40$, when they can have it for 0?
I wouldn't be surprised if you have a large group of die hard pirates who buy nothing and then sizeable part of the Steam audience who buy games on Steam, an then perhaps people in the middle who occasionally pirate. The first group you can forget, doesn't matter how good your DRM, pretty much none of them will bite. So the DRM model must aim to make occasional pirates in to purchasers. But clearly in a world where Denuvo has been cracked within weeks for years, that doesn't work. Instead you would need to create incentives that make the legitimate version more interesting. Better price, better Steam-exclusive features, whatever.
Instead adding even totally non-intrusive DRM to the game, will give you a bad rep with a large portion of your customers, perhaps enough to make them buy other games (Steam isn't exactly underserved with new, shiny games).
DRM didn't save the PC industry, Steam did by offering better, cheaper services. This is a solved issue, the only new thing, and the reason we are talking about this in 2017, is that Denuvo had a smart idea that utilized a new principle and it took a while for people to debug it properly (made more difficult by the anti-tampering). But it's a one hit wonder, they are just trying to beat the same old horse, with no real improvements. Hope this stuff dies down again, when it's clear that Denuvo doesn't do anything anymore.
Drek
I was just about to suggest something similar. I wonder how people would respond to an authentication system that expires after a set date.
Players could either buy it and live with the DRM for a few months. Or get it cheaper and DRM free a few months after release.
Mivey
The point isn't to get pirates to buy the game. It's to preserve the games market place value. When the market is flooded with stolen goods, it applies downward pressure on asking price.
Also, Denuvo isn't the only DRM. It could also be server authentication.
I was just about to suggest something similar. I wonder how people would respond to an authentication system that expires after a set date.
Players could either buy it and live with the DRM for a few months. Or get it cheaper and DRM free a few months after release.
Mivey
The point isn't to get pirates to buy the game. It's to preserve the games market place value. When the market is flooded with stolen goods, it applies downward pressure on asking price.
Also, Denuvo isn't the only DRM. It could also be server authentication.
This is such a huge thing. The first month decides everything, if a DRM can last even just two weeks it would be a massive success.
To me, I feel like the trade-off would be a promise to disable the DRM after a set amount of time, let's say a month. A non-negligible piracy behaviour is to get something as fast as they can, and if they cannot have it, they either buy it or move to the next big production they pirate. Most pirates aren't of the patient type so I feel it would serve everyone.
Wolfenstein 2 is especially important because it is a sequel of a game that had a late success, so its legs are firmly on the expectation that it would be a hit from the start because of the hype. I can understand the MachineGames staff being especially distressed about those setbacks.
I've seen this a lot as well some people pirate early releases to see how it plays / runs for themselves before purchasing. Not that I agree with that but maybe PC need free trials for 2 hours or something like EA access does.
But you guys back then said all these pirates aren't lost sales....
As much as we dislike Drm , it's a direct effect of Pirates. Best of luck to pc devs. On consoles, this could also be an issue but when it's not, they should focus on closed systems.
As much as we dislike Drm , it's a direct effect of Pirates. Best of luck to pc devs. On consoles, this could also be an issue but when it's not, they should focus on closed systems.
Sure, but the middle group you listed is likely far, far larger than the first group.
Ah ok, i see. Maybe thats where the 15k dollar number comes from indeed.