Bethesda removes DRM from Rage 2 after just two days

[mr moose]

15 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Dont sell well huh?

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-outgrossed-some-of-2017s-biggest-games-because-its-just-that-good/

 

7 hours ago, bradwiggo said:

The Witcher 3 didn't have DRM, I don't remember any news about thousands upon thousands of people pirating that. DRM isn't necessary, even if it makes them slightly more money, they don't need slightly more money, they need to care about the consumers more. 

 

As  I said, unless you can compare a fair number of DRM AAA to non DRM AAA in terms of sales and account for piracy related content traits, then you can't just look at one game and claim piracy has no effect.  You may as well try and claim the world is flat because if you hold a level up tot he horizon it is flat.

 

2 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Under that standard, the only position on piracy that has truly significant evidence is that a bad piece of entertainment leaked early leads to lost sales.

 

How did you conclude that?  not sure what you are trying to illustrate by saying that though. 

[williamcll]

Isn't steam itself cracked long ago?

[bradwiggo]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

 

As  I said, unless you can compare a fair number of DRM AAA to non DRM AAA in terms of sales and account for piracy related content traits, then you can't just look at one game and claim piracy has no effect.  You may as well try and claim the world is flat because if you hold a level up tot he horizon it is flat.

 

 

How did you conclude that?  not sure what you are trying to illustrate by saying that though. 

You are likely right, I can't honestly claim that I follow AAA game news very closely, having little interest in them myself, but I recall seeing articles about how the amount of Piracy of the Wicher 3 was lower than other games with DRM, I might be wrong though. 

 

However I still don't support DRM, it hurts consumers for a most likely minor gain on the companies side, whilst treating all the people who actually bought the game like they are criminals. 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, bradwiggo said:

You are likely right, I can't honestly claim that I follow AAA game news very closely, having little interest in them myself, but I recall seeing articles about how the amount of Piracy of the Wicher 3 was lower than other games with DRM, I might be wrong though. 

 

However I still don't support DRM, it hurts consumers for a most likely minor gain on the companies side, whilst treating all the people who actually bought the game like they are criminals. 

No one likes DRM except the devs.   

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 5/18/2019 at 11:02 AM, NyetARussianSpy said:

AAs of now, even though Denuvo is getting bypassed right now in a few hours, it is certainly better than no protection at all.

That is indeed far from certain. Quantifying the impact of Denuvo on profits, if any, is hard to do and afaik never even attempted (other than terrible wishful thinking calculations).

 

 

On 5/19/2019 at 2:36 AM, leadeater said:

 

A game without DRM can sell very well while also still being pirated on a large scale. Selling 10 million copies doesn't show it wasn't pirated, just that it managed to sell 10 million copies.

Yes. However, whether the game is pirated or not isn't really important; in fact, some piracy can be good for profits if it increases the game's popularity among potential buyers (e.g., your pirate friends tried it and loved it, they told you about it or showed it to you, and now you buy it). Sales and piracy go hand in hand - games tend to be popular/unpopular for both pirates and buyers. 

On 5/19/2019 at 2:36 AM, leadeater said:

 

Many game developers would love to sell 10 million copies though so if you are sure you can do that without DRM and the confidence to back that belief then that's great, I don't think the majority are or their publishers would allow it even if that were the case.

It doesn't need to be 10 million, though, it could be 5,000 as well - the key is whether The Witcher 3 gave up a significant portion of its sales by not having DRM or whether it didn't matter at all. If you are only going to sell 5,000 copies, and no DRM means you'll sell 4,800-5,000, then the example is still valid.

At the end of the day, any game you make (within reason ) will sell some copies and will get pirated. The unanswered question is quantitative: how many sales (or, given Denuvo isn't free, how much profit) can you get via DRM vs. no DRM? The answer may or may not be different for small and big developers, for games of one genre or another, etc.

On 5/19/2019 at 2:36 AM, leadeater said:

Stardock who make and publish a large number of games I like to play has historically been on the no DRM side however when they first released Sins of A Solar Empire, a game that turned out to be highly popular also turned out to be highly pirated and Stardock had to introduce DRM in to a later patch + expansion of the game.

 

This DRM was then later relaxed to requiring a Stardock account and registering your game to the account for multiplayer, meaning single player was again 'DRM free'.

 

The above is my personal example of a game that is worth the price, highly popular, DRM free that due to piracy had to introduce DRM going against a fundamental philosophy of Stardock.

 

Well, "had to" -they chose to  I mean, as I said, highly popular in terms of sales will mean highly popular in terms of piracy. Whether it was necessary or even convenient to do something about it is open for debate.

 

On 5/19/2019 at 10:32 AM, bradwiggo said:

The Witcher 3 didn't have DRM, I don't remember any news about thousands upon thousands of people pirating that.

I don't have the figures either, but It would be the first popular game in history not pirated by the thousands  Of course it was pirated. That isn't the question, though.

On 5/19/2019 at 10:32 AM, bradwiggo said:

DRM isn't necessary,

Maybe, maybe not -that's the missing information. And that's the important part: whether they forewent 10 million more sales by doing so, or just 10, or maybe gained 1,000 from people who wouldn't have bought it otherwise (more than one person in this thread already stated to only buy DRM-less games).

 

On 5/19/2019 at 10:32 AM, bradwiggo said:

even if it makes them slightly more money, they don't need slightly more money,

Of course they do, that's the whole point of running a business. Sure, the guy on art design or writing code shouldn't be focusing on that, but someone's job at the company is exclusively how to make money - so all the others get paid.

 

[Trik'Stari]

On 5/19/2019 at 3:24 AM, leadeater said:

And you know that how, I'm pretty sure Stardock knew what they were doing to both go ahead and do it and also track the effects and know when to dial it back like they did. Don't think it was weeks either and you're making the false logical jump that the DRM being cracked means the majority of those who had or were going to pirate the game acquired the crack.

 

You're assuming a lot from no information.

Not sure which part of his statement you are asking, but I can tell you that a cracked version of Rage 2 has been available from at least day 2 as far as I am aware.

 

allegedly.

 

Anti-Piracy efforts only harm the consumer.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Not sure which part of his statement you are asking, but I can tell you that a cracked version of Rage 2 has been available from at least day 2 as far as I am aware.

 

allegedly.

 

Anti-Piracy efforts only harm the consumer.

Wasn't about Rage 2, he was commenting about The Witcher 3 and how a great game without DRM for a fair price sold heaps of copies so wasn't being pirated where as it can simultaneously be true that a game could be selling that well while also being pirated. In that situation it's basically up to the publisher/developer to care or not.

 

Stardock was in this exact situation, though being a less popular genre likely selling less, decided it was necessary to introduce short term DRM protection to protect sales. Would SoaSE reached 2-5 million sales without the DRM? Don't know, it wouldn't be all that unreasonable to expect a sales jump after the DRM was added by those who had pirated the game and at that point decided it was worth paying for rather than waiting for a crack or just worth paying for at all.

 

More to the topic Rage 2 always had a DRM free copy that you could buy, it was pretty stupid to have 2 different versions like that.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Yes. However, whether the game is pirated or not isn't really important

Well it was important in that the opinion and statement was because it sold that well it wasn't being pirated.

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Part of the reason Rage 2 sold well is because it's part of an id franchise.  Ya, it was pirated probably.  But, that has nothing to do with it selling well.

It was about the Witcher 3 not Rage 2. Should probably read further back in the conversation chain. I wasn't the one drawing a conclusion like that from the game selling well. Literally any game that is selling well in all likelihood is being pirated to a reasonably large degree. Pure popularity, in the same way it's hard to find a TV show download for one that is unpopular versus one that is. If nobody likes it why would you want it?

[Kirrr]

On 5/18/2019 at 3:21 PM, Trik'Stari said:

Allegedly the game has already been cracked.

 

Allegedly.

Cracked before you could hit the play button in the steam client....

[bradwiggo]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

No one likes DRM except the devs.   

 

 

Is it the devs or the publishers normally that want DRM? Although yes I do agree, they don't do it to win over consumer, they do it because they feel they have to. 

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, bradwiggo said:

Is it the devs or the publishers normally that want DRM? Although yes I do agree, they don't do it to win over consumer, they do it because they feel they have to. 

I would probably say the publishers, couldn't imagine many developers caring much about DRM when your primary focus is on making the game at all. Publishers also have the larger financial incentive too since they are funding it, part funding it or coordinated the funding.

[EldritchMoose]

18 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Anti-Piracy efforts only harm the consumer.

Agreed. The only way to justify the use of DRM is if consumers would all choose to pirate on day one if given the chance.

 

It's like buying a DVD in the mid-2000s. You buy an entertainment product through legal means and you get rewarded with at least two trailers you don't want and two ads telling you not to pirate every time you play the disc. None of which can be skipped.

[Trik'Stari]

4 hours ago, EldritchMoose said:

Agreed. The only way to justify the use of DRM is if consumers would all choose to pirate on day one if given the chance.

 

It's like buying a DVD in the mid-2000s. You buy an entertainment product through legal means and you get rewarded with at least two trailers you don't want and two ads telling you not to pirate every time you play the disc. None of which can be skipped.

Not to forget that those ads and trailers make the verifiably false claim that piracy is theft.