With all the new amazing games coming out basically every month, lets not forget some slightly older games worth playing. Like DOOM Eternal, that just removed Denuvo Anti-Tamper.
I feel like this is just a new cash grab technique, and it’s actually pretty smart. The audience of people who will buy immediately despite DRM will do their thing, first wave of money complete. Over the next few years, trickle in more cash through steam sales. Once that well dries, get one more wave of cash by removing DRM, which appeases the audience that abstained the whole time, collecting their cash.
Edit: my half baked conspiracy theory got some attention. the argument that companies remove DRM like Denuvo because of cost makes way more sense, Occam’s razor holds true. Both can be true, they save money by removing the DRM, which has the nice side-effect of creating a small new wave of sales. Win/win. I’m sure Denuvo hates this and will one day make it more difficult for studios to just remove their software, because money.
Sorry but that doesn’t really make sense. In that scenario it is more sensible to just release a DRM free game at start, because the first group would buy either way and the second group would buy at the higher launch/near-launch pricing (since games drop in prices over time). It doesn’t make sense to make essentially 2 versions of the game over such a span of time like you described.
A more realistic scenario would be that there is some cost / licensing fee to use Denuvo tech and it no longer makes financial sense for Doom Eternal to do so, hence BOOM! DRM free.
Well, the intent behind adding DRM at first is to maximize profit by making piracy more difficult. Trust me I hate DRM too, but it’s not like they add it for no reason.
I didn’t say anything about that. I’m saying the main reason Bethesda removed Denuvo from Doom Eternal is likely because of cost reasons, not because it’s a marketing play to drive sales (like OP suggested).
That’s the intent behind it, how well does it actually work in that front well it’s tough to say. Fact of the matter is I know this from hanging out in these communities people who aren’t willing to pay for the game but still play it usually aren’t willing to pay for it just to play it.
The actual amount of people who “give in” is tough to estimate, because many people who do it are either astroturfing or are pretending, and most of the people who do “give in” typically will keep quiet about it, it’s not in their best interest to Brand themselves as a shill to other pirates.
So the legitimate people almost never speak up about doing this, and most of the people who speak up aren’t really doing this either. So it’s hard to say just how much the DRM actually curbs it, and since the companies and their shareholders are paying for it they would probably want to imagine that number to be as high as possible because if it isn’t they really are paying for it for nothing more than an imagined benefit.
Pretty sure that’s literally Denuvos pitch. They don’t expect it to be uncracked forever, just last long enough to maximize initial sales and then eventually remove it when it’s done its job. It’s like a padlock on a bike, keeps honest people honest but won’t actually stop a real thief.
It stops real thieves “long enough”, which is why developers and publishers continue to use it. Lots of AAA games go uncracked for a year or more. The first few months or so are the most critical time for sales.
They’ve come a long ways since the '00s, when DRM schemes were both far more draconian and rarely effective for more than a few days.
I feel like this is just a new cash grab technique, and it’s actually pretty smart. The audience of people who will buy immediately despite DRM will do their thing, first wave of money complete. Over the next few years, trickle in more cash through steam sales. Once that well dries, get one more wave of cash by removing DRM, which appeases the audience that abstained the whole time, collecting their cash.
Edit: my half baked conspiracy theory got some attention. the argument that companies remove DRM like Denuvo because of cost makes way more sense, Occam’s razor holds true. Both can be true, they save money by removing the DRM, which has the nice side-effect of creating a small new wave of sales. Win/win. I’m sure Denuvo hates this and will one day make it more difficult for studios to just remove their software, because money.
I heard Denovo is a subscription so eventually it’s less cost effective to keep paying for it
Whoa, it looks like you may be right. Quick search shows it’s a sum for the first 12 months, then about €2000/mo after.
The one time software as a service comes through in our favour…
Sorry but that doesn’t really make sense. In that scenario it is more sensible to just release a DRM free game at start, because the first group would buy either way and the second group would buy at the higher launch/near-launch pricing (since games drop in prices over time). It doesn’t make sense to make essentially 2 versions of the game over such a span of time like you described.
A more realistic scenario would be that there is some cost / licensing fee to use Denuvo tech and it no longer makes financial sense for Doom Eternal to do so, hence BOOM! DRM free.
Well, the intent behind adding DRM at first is to maximize profit by making piracy more difficult. Trust me I hate DRM too, but it’s not like they add it for no reason.
I didn’t say anything about that. I’m saying the main reason Bethesda removed Denuvo from Doom Eternal is likely because of cost reasons, not because it’s a marketing play to drive sales (like OP suggested).
@habanhero @corytheboyd Will they really re-release a game just to say it has no DRM to make more money in sales? that sounds really exploitative
They haven’t re-released the game, it’s just an update that removes the DRM which they have to continue to pay for otherwise
I mean, if there are people who want to buy it, why not? It would just be icing on the cake for Bethesda.
That’s the intent behind it, how well does it actually work in that front well it’s tough to say. Fact of the matter is I know this from hanging out in these communities people who aren’t willing to pay for the game but still play it usually aren’t willing to pay for it just to play it.
The actual amount of people who “give in” is tough to estimate, because many people who do it are either astroturfing or are pretending, and most of the people who do “give in” typically will keep quiet about it, it’s not in their best interest to Brand themselves as a shill to other pirates.
So the legitimate people almost never speak up about doing this, and most of the people who speak up aren’t really doing this either. So it’s hard to say just how much the DRM actually curbs it, and since the companies and their shareholders are paying for it they would probably want to imagine that number to be as high as possible because if it isn’t they really are paying for it for nothing more than an imagined benefit.
Pretty sure that’s literally Denuvos pitch. They don’t expect it to be uncracked forever, just last long enough to maximize initial sales and then eventually remove it when it’s done its job. It’s like a padlock on a bike, keeps honest people honest but won’t actually stop a real thief.
It stops real thieves “long enough”, which is why developers and publishers continue to use it. Lots of AAA games go uncracked for a year or more. The first few months or so are the most critical time for sales.
They’ve come a long ways since the '00s, when DRM schemes were both far more draconian and rarely effective for more than a few days.
Edit denuvo lasts longer than I thought… https://fossbytes.com/list-of-all-popular-games-cracked-by-pirate-groups/