rumor has it id just removed Denuvo DRM from Doom (2016)

[BleakMaker]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/industry/2083-the-witcher-3-budget-breakdown

 

 

why those dates you may ask

2011 - The Witcher 2 released on Windows

2012 - TW2 released on X360 and OSX

Can you explain it some more? because the witcher 2 was fun but the witcher 3 was a lot better so i can't imagine that only because it was drm free their sales were so high?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

57 minutes ago, Mark17 said:

This is bs if they take the time to pirate the game they must really want to play it. so if piracy was not possible there would always have been a chance that they would buy it.

"A chance" doesn't mean anything: are there foregone sales? Is there evidence of any major impact on sales?

52 minutes ago, bgibbz said:

That is very flawed logic. If you dont want to pay for the game, dont get it! I for one know many people who would have bought a particular game, but instead chose to pirate. If you wanted a coke, you wouldnt just walk in to a store and steal it. You would either buy it or live with not having it.

That's fine, but that's a moral statement, different from why it happens and what consequences it has, which is a question about facts, not points of view or mroal values.

Quote

Piracy is no different from theft. 

Well, yes, it is, that is a fact. Theft is a violation of personal property rights (real estate is different as well), while piracy is a violation of copyright. Taking someone else's possession is a very different crime than violating a legal monopoly.

 

48 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

there is evidence. publishers and developers say there is a two week window to make your money and then sales tank when its cracked.

Really? Where? Please, point me to it, because it fails to show up every time.

37 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Pirating a copy of a game is distribution of material hence illegal in the USA and other jurisdictions.

Hence piracy. Distribution applies to both the sender (host) and recipient (seed).

Exactly. That is the relevant breach of law here.

24 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Although I don't disagree, I think a good analogy for piracy is receiving a service without paying for it. While no physical object was stolen, theft still occurred. Not perfect but I think it works better than comparing to physical theft.

Not really, it's not that either. A much closer analogy would be: your state's laws mandate that only liquor stores can sell and distribute alcoholic beverages. You sell alcohol in a non-authorized store, or distribute home made alcohol among friends. That's the kind of private goods analogue that is closest to copyright violation.

17 minutes ago, Mark17 said:

It has never been proven that it does not hurt sales and it's never proven that it did but in either case it's wrong and needs to be stopped DRM mightn not be an ideal solution and is easy to crack but it is a necessary evil.

And you never proved you didn't kill JFK. So? You can't just state that something happens until someone brings proof it doesn't - especially because such proof can't ever be produced: it's one of the basic results in epistemology, you can't prove a general, you can only prove a particular. Proving a particular does, however, disprove it's contradictory general.

In other words: you can prove there is at least one white crow, therefore you can reject that all crows are black. You can never prove that all crows are black.

10 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Piracy is not just another word for theft. Because the goods concerned are of digital nature. There is no direct ditrement to the owner ot distributor. Rather it is just to protect the right of the product owner to compensation in exchange for your use of the software they made. 

Almost, but not quite. In fact, copyright holders don't need to be the creators of anything. It's just a mechanism to create some economic rights for creators, and try to link them to the commercial success of their creations. Establishing a monopoly over the physical copies of their work seemed like a good idea at the time. We don't even have physical copies most of the times now, but somehow they try to adapt the old structure. Alternatives were always possible, and they may become necessary: the copy monopoly worked to some extent under certain technological conditions, but it's not granted to be useful forever.

 

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, Mark17 said:

Can you explain it some more? because the witcher 2 was fun but the witcher 3 was a lot better so i can't imagine that only because it was drm free their sales were so high?

 

[BleakMaker]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

"A chance" doesn't mean anything: are there foregone sales? Is there evidence of any major impact on sales?

That's fine, but that's a moral statement, different from why it happens and what consequences it has, which is a question about facts, not points of view or mroal values.

Well, yes, it is, that is a fact. Theft is a violation of personal property rights (real estate is different as well), while piracy is a violation of copyright. Taking someone else's possession is a very different crime than violating a legal monopoly.

 

Really? Where? Please, point me to it, because it fails to show up every time.

Exactly. That is the relevant breach of law here.

Not really, it's not that either. A much closer analogy would be: your state's laws mandate that only liquor stores can sell and distribute alcoholic beverages. You sell alcohol in a non-authorized store, or distribute home made alcohol among friends. That's the kind of private goods analogue that is closest to copyright violation.

And you never proved you didn't kill JFK. So? You can't just state that something happens until someone brings proof it doesn't - especially because such proof can't ever be produced: it's one of the basic results in epistemology, you can't prove a general, you can only prove a particular. Proving a particular does, however, disprove it's contradictory general.

In other words: you can prove there is at least one white crow, therefore you can reject that all crows are black. You can never prove that all crows are black.

Almost, but not quite. In fact, copyright holders don't need to be the creators of anything. It's just a mechanism to create some economic rights for creators, and try to link them to the commercial success of their creations. Establishing a monopoly over the physical copies of their work seemed like a good idea at the time. We don't even have physical copies most of the times now, but somehow they try to adapt the old structure. Alternatives were always possible, and they may become necessary: the copy monopoly worked to some extent under certain technological conditions, but it's not granted to be useful forever.

 

No but it can't be proved that it does not hurt sales either. using words that I don't know as a dutch person don't change that. although i must say that I'm very impressed and a little bit scared

[bgibbz]

39 minutes ago, herman mcpootis said:

i wanted to buy fallout 4 when it came out. than came the age limit and i couldn't get it, so i had no choice but to pirate it instead(getting on steam too expensive).

You most certainly did have a choice. You could have not gotten the game, or you could have thought of a way to save a few dollars and purchased it legitimatly. 

41 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I suggest you get out of your bubble and discover The World

I know a family of 5 that currently lives off of food stamps. The father was hit by a car and lost his leg and is unable to work, and the mother cleans houses everyday. Despite how tight money was, these people were able to buy plenty of games legitimately. While i understand that buying games is a privilege much of the world cannot afford, there is always a way to get by legitmatly. There are plenty of free to play games.

11 minutes ago, zMeul said:

actually it was

dude got a bunch or Raspberry Pi machines in a art gallery and set them to download and delete a song - they did this millions of times

While this proves that there may not be a direct financial loss on the company, it fails to prove in anyway that people who pirate either eventually buy the game or wouldn't have bought it anyways. I know for a fact of several people who are financially well off and want a game to the point where they would have easily bought it, but chose instead to pirate it because in there minds, why pay money when you can have something for free. 

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, bgibbz said:

While this proves that there may not be a direct financial loss on the company, it fails to prove in anyway that people who pirate either eventually buy the game or wouldn't have bought it anyways. I know for a fact of several people who are financially well off and want a game to the point where they would have easily bought it, but chose instead to pirate it because in there minds, why pay money when you can have something for free. 

you might wanna listen to CDPR dude in the video I linked above

[SCHISCHKA]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Really? Where? Please, point me to it, because it fails to show up every time.

i dont know why you are trying to troll me by stating you do not know how to use a search engine. Again it is against the forum rules to post lmgtfy links. You seem to be starting arguments and asserting your knowledge with everybody but you cannot use google? Chill out and smoke a joint or go for a walk or something.

I get nothing but research papers on piracy when I use google.

https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=internet+piracy+affects+sales&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3orKxw-PQAhUJUZQKHQDfAqMQgQMIGDAA

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, Mark17 said:

No but it can't be proved that it does not hurt sales either. using words that I don't know as a dutch person don't change that. although i must say that I'm very impressed and a little bit scared

Just focus on the birds' example: an absolute statement can't, by it's nature, be ever confirmed. As they say "you may not find something in the internet, but you'll never know whether it doesn't exist or you didn't search hard enough"  But you can prove particular (i.e., individual) statement, like another user did ("hey, I pirated a game, and I think I would have bought it if I hadn't found any free copy", so there we have it, it seems at  least one sale was lot, although we can't say more than that)  

[SpaceGhostC2C]

9 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

i dont know why you are trying to troll me by stating you do not know how to use a search engine. Again it is against the forum rules to post lmgtfy links. You seem to be starting arguments and asserting your knowledge with everybody but you cannot use google? Chill out and smoke a joint or go for a walk or something.

I get nothing but research papers on piracy when I use google.

https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=internet+piracy+affects+sales&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3orKxw-PQAhUJUZQKHQDfAqMQgQMIGDAA

I know how to use a search engine. I also know fellow economists working on the particular field, and know through them how hard it is to find such evidence - in particular because a credible identification strategy is hard to achieve. In other words, we lack good data on piracy by its very nature, and even with it, it's hard to isolate its effect from everything else.

Hint: random links aren't evidence. Have you even read any of them?

In fact, the stronger evidence available is indirect evidence in the music industry (which is a different industry than the blooming gaming industry): record companies changed they type of contracts they sign with artists, trading a lower share of record sales for a slice of the income artists make from concerts and everything else (so called 360 contracts). The accepted explanation is that record labels noticed they were more affected than actual creators by piracy, due to their income relying more on record sales, while artist had concerts, etc., hence they push for a change of terms to split the whole pie.

[SCHISCHKA]

5 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Hint: random links aren't evidence. Have you even read any of them?

yes i have

[bgibbz]

8 minutes ago, zMeul said:

you might wanna listen to CDPR dude in the video I linked above

Just did. While games don't have a per unit manufacturing cost, it still nevertheless hurts sales when a game is pirated by a person who may have purchased the product anyways. If things were as simple as the guy in the video made it seem, every game would be free to download with an optional donation button. I beleive that many people pirate games because they want  a game and there is no reasonable way that they can justify the cost, but at the same time I dont think its right to steal intellectual property. I have always wanted there to be charity type site where people could buy games for strangers that werent financially able to purchase them. Despite all of this, piracy CAN hurt the industry. While the cost is apparent due to the lack of per unit production costs, potential revenue suffers. While to big companies like witcher, this won't matter, but to small indie guys this can be deal breaking. Google around a bit, you can find plenty of articles on the indie devoloper getting screwed by pirating. 

 

 

Personally, I would like to see some in game anti piracy. My favorite example, mentioned on a WAN show from a couple of years ago, was an indie developer that made a game dev simulator. If you pirated his game, the chance of your in game product being pirated drastically increased. 

[zMeul]

10 minutes ago, bgibbz said:

but to small indie guys this can be deal breaking. Google around a bit, you can find plenty of articles on the indie devoloper getting screwed by pirating. 

indie developers aren't hurt by piracy, they're hurt by the gray market of keys

 

in fact, many indie developers have benefitted a lot from "pay what you want" campaigns: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/developers-and-fans-benefit-humble-indie-bundle

[SpaceGhostC2C]

9 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

yes i have

Then you'll know how useless a random first page of results can be.

 

This, on the other hand, is coming from one of the top 5 peer-reviewed journals in economics.

 

People in Marketing research have also pointed out that availability of digital copies, rather than piracy itself, may have had an impact, and that legal downloads can crowd out illegal ones, meaning that part of the effect assigned to piracy was due to technology more broadly, although legal uses of technology took longer to appear.

 

Edit: but this is still about music, and I'm genuinely interested in studies for the gaming industry, whatever the results may be.

[bgibbz]

11 minutes ago, zMeul said:

they're hurt by the gray market of keys

This is something i can totally agree with you on. As much as I dislike piracy, grey market is even worse. At least piracy has the tag of "illegal" and many people view it as immoral. So many people view grey market sites as being a perfectly okay, legitimate way of purchasing game, with little knowledge that they are screwing over the devs. I know a kid who drives a Tesla p90d, has a $3,000 computer, and buys every one of his games off of g2a. While he doesn't intend to do wrong, he genuinely believed that grey market sites are no different than buying on steam. While i dislike piracy and all, at least its illegal. 

[jaggysnake57]

6 hours ago, Mark17 said:

Why should you encourage it is very difficult for developers to keep creating stuff if there sales drop because of piracy. I want them to keep making good games so I absolutely don't encourage it. 

grow up, piracy is rampant and yet devs still crank out AAA games with budgets equal Hollywood movies

6 hours ago, Mark17 said:

This is bs if they take the time to pirate the game they must really want to play it. so if piracy was not possible there would always have been a chance that they would buy it.

er no for 1 it takes 2 mins longer to pirate a game than to get it legitimatly. 2 i have pirated tons of games that i would never have brought, most recently deus ex. without a crack i would never have brought it. infact i had no intention of getting doom till it got cracked.

6 hours ago, bgibbz said:

That is very flawed logic. If you dont want to pay for the game, dont get it! I for one know many people who would have bought a particular game, but instead chose to pirate. If you wanted a coke, you wouldnt just walk in to a store and steal it. You would either buy it or live with not having it. Piracy is no different from theft. 

rubbish, i know loads of people that would not have brought a game regardless. whats your point

6 hours ago, SCHISCHKA said:

there is evidence. publishers and developers say there is a two week window to make your money and then sales tank when its cracked.

1 publishers have a vested interest

2 most games either get cracked with in a couple of days of being released or months later ala doom. sales tank after a couple of weeks, mainly because most people who wanted the game have got it by then.

 

i have nothing against denuvo. its part of the game (). if anything it should show once and for all how much piracy effects sales. i would love to sale figures after games like deus ex and doom got cracked. if there is a sudden spike then it shows that piracy does not effect sales but i doubt anyone will ever release anything that shows that.

 

BTW the piracy = theft argument is more complicated than yes or no. for a start off is it theft if you would never have brought the game in the first place?

[That Norwegian Guy]

Few years ago, the only games I pirated were ones with draconian DRM.

Then I grew up and I realized pirating them is unneccessary. I'd rather not play it at all now, remove myself entirely from the hype wagon and the word of mouth machine.

Games with Denuvo don't even deserve to be played.

 

So if it's true that Doom no longer has Denuvo, I will consider buying it. Hopefully Dishonored 2 gets the same treatment as I took it off my wishlist and cancelled buying it for my brother as his birthday gift for that exact reason.

 

BTW, Elder Scrolls is my #1 favourite game franchise but I'd ditch it with zero regret if the next one has Denuvo. That's how strongly I hate it.

[Space Reptile]

on the topic of piracy , I pirate games , because nobody releases demos anymore , and if I play the game for lets say 2 hours and have a blast , I buy It , simple as that

 

fighting piracy w/ forced DRM wich also attacks honest buyers causes more damage that people pirating the game and liking it , and in the future when Online DRM servers are dead , the game dies aswell , imagine in the 90´s DRM was a thing , Image the massive amount of game we weren't able to play nowadays and would have just forgotten about

[Miguel Batista]

I am going to go out on a limb and say that main distributing companies like Ubisoft are the lead cause of diminishing downloads. Piracy does fuck all compared to when a company releases a game broken af like Batman or The Division.

[AlTech]

9 hours ago, zMeul said:

snip

I agree but I think that the problem of Piracy needs a different answer.

 

I think that Game Devs should modularize game packages so that while the initial download on Steam contains the main game, games can also have an addon/downloadable content pack which adds in game currency or boosts to your account.

 

So then you're rewarding players who pay rather than punishing everybody cos of those who don't pay.

 

Quote

but there's nothing in the patch notes relating to this DMR change

*DRM

[laminutederire]

2 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

BTW the piracy = theft argument is more complicated than yes or no. for a start off is it theft if you would never have brought the game in the first place?

Don't try to justify an absurd position. On a legal point of view it is theft. Otherwise we'd rob bank saying we weren't in it for the money, just to know how it was to have a million dollars in our bag, while still not be put in jail. No matter what the intent is, it is theft.

What you can question could however be: is it moral to do so? On that question,  it will never be moral, at least in Kant's meaning, since having your product stolen from you is not something you'd wish for. That leaves arguing that piracy is amoral. For it to be amoral, I'd argue that it is not like someone stealing food because they can't afford it and absolutely need it and couldn't do otherwise. Because in the case of games, it isn't essential for ones survival or anything to have played a particular game. Therefore they choose to go against the morality, so they stand in immorality, which they'd have to then assume.

[Doobeedoo]

Ooh, nice. Just played some yesterday after the update. This is great cause Denuvo is just terrible and not necessary.

They as in companies are surprised why there is piracy in one way, maybe make a game that actually haves enough content, or better yet, make a game that actually looks as presented in demo or even works for PC maybe! How about putting more effort there, where it should be without saying and not DRM shit. Then you may see sale rise actually.

 

Guess some don't get why some people choose to pirate certain game from what I've read here. There can be many reasons, not generic "I'm a kid, I have no money, I want to play the game" type. If there are certain games people like but get disappointed cause of looking worse than demo, plays terrible cause it's a shitty port and not developed for PC properly, lacks content and sells tiny bits as DLCs and on top of all that adds DRM too. And people paying for visually nerfed game, with little original content, garbage performance across hardware just let's companies continue with such shit. Those that pirate these broken games mainly do I'd say just cause they like the series for example and want to experience the story.

 

Certain game companies should seriously look them selves.

[zMeul]

hearsay on why Denuvo was removed from DOOM: 

 

 

Inside also used Denuvo and got cracked shortly after release

Playdead, the developer, dropped Denuvo from the game http://www.pcgamer.com/playdead-drops-denuvo-from-the-hit-indie-platformer-inside/

[laminutederire]

5 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

 

Isn't it what trusted reviews are for though?

[zMeul]

now with Denuvo removed, there's a possibility id could release a Linux version with Vulkan support ... maybe

[AlTech]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

now with Denuvo removed, there's a possibility id could release a Linux version with Vulkan support ... maybe

I thought Doom 2016 already supported Linux though .