Not really. It just takes a few clicks to pirate a game on PC, with no modification to your hard- or software. Yet, it's a very profitable platform and has been receiving tremendous support from developers in these past few years. Attempts at DRM like Denuvo fail miserably, but games remain successful.
You're just throwing ideas at a wall here with no consistency.
So, the Denuvo security fails... and therefore that is proof that it's working? Or not needed?
And just because it's a profitable platform doesn't mean piracy isn't a security issue. PC Piracy rates remains in the 90% range according to many reports. Most likely the userbase has grown exponentially as a whole, which means even the small fraction who do not pirate has itself grown. That fraction may be healthy enough to justify greenlighting games, sure, but so what? What does that have to do with my claim that piracy is a security issue? Zero.
Piracy rates were much lower on SNES and N64 than on any modern platform. Why? Because of better security. The format made piracy too expensive and thus risky to be worth it for most commercial pirates, and too costly (requiring expensive extra hardware and hoops to jump through) for consumer pirates. In that era and all through the 90s the fully cracked Famicom dominated the piracy scene (on pirated consoles too, no-less) because it was easier. And to this date, Piracy rates are essentially non-existent on uncracked (or extremely hard to crack) consoles, then skyrocket when they get cracked. DS sold almost a billion games, but tapered off
hard once piracy became mainstream.
Strong security = lower piracy. Less security = higher piracy. It's so obvious but everyone wants to tread around it with mealy-mouthed buzzwords and excuses. Switch/PS4 didn't need 'better services' to 'combat' piracy when they were still uncracked. There was
no piracy.
