Surely, this has nothing to do with the fact that live service and subscription games generate more revenue, whether or not piracy is involved.
The other option I can see for the large companies is that any project involving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars is likely to be insured, and a condition of that insurance is they take all reasonable options available to get the most success out of it that they can. If they don't they need to reduce the risk which probably means less resources allocated which again may not be interesting to the companies capable of making grand experiences versus other options.
Why are you equating people who like single player games to pirates? Are you suggesting devs who made single player games were caving under some kind of market pressure that was ultimately unhealthy for them?
The difference in global, high-speed internet access between Quake and Fortnite is huge. I think that explains why live service games are a recent thing more than piracy. That, and Valve set the blueprint for gambling and loot boxes with TF2.
Regardless, I think the jury is out on Live Service games being "safer" to make. There's certainly a lot of people chasing what Fortnite has, but there's a lot of graves and layoffs. It seems like the single player studios are shutting down less because they were unprofitable, and more because building a sustainable business on selling good products doesn't sound good to investors trying to make an exit.
Isn't historically piracy positive for sales [1]?
That said, I'm pretty sure the real issue is that single / local coop games are just not appealing and so they get weaker sales. Like wtf was with Pikmen 2 not letting player 2 control louie? And then when local games start to sell poorly they get divestment but I'm pretty sure it was just lousey games and not piracy.
[1]: https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-pira...
if it was for the companies who use Denuvo and it added negative value then Denuvo wouldn't exist as a business and game publishers would happily post their games to pirate sites themselves.
The level of copium involved in piracy debates is always a sight to behold. I'm no saint, I've pirated stuff too but I did so because I was cheap, not because I'm doing the company a favor. That's a level of rationalization you expect from a drug addict
Efficient market fallacy strikes again.
No, is is absolutely possible that use of Denuvo results in a net loss and it is still used. Executives don't always behave rational and it is not like you can AB Test that thing or even easily measure its impact.
Look at their own/industry data of comparable games that have been published with or without protection. I worked in the game industry, for AAA studios it's a no brainer. Denuvo for a big title that sells millions of copies runs about high six or low seven figures in costs, so about 1-3% of the budget, whereas preventing piracy in the first 12 weeks meant something like a 10-20% increase (tens of millions) in sales.
If everyone colludes, then the game publishers wouldn't need to suffer for including Denuvo. And the nature of the collusion doesn't require some literal conspiracy, it just requires that the personalities at the top of the pyramids (of which there are but a few) are assholes who have an ideological bent. We are all aware of the type: they would spend themselves into the poorhouse making certain no one can "steal" from them, and what they consider theirs isn't entirely congruent with what the law says.
>The level of copium involved in piracy debates is always a sight to behold. I'm no saint, I've pirated stuff too b
I've never pirated anything. I don't hijack ships at sea. I have infringed copyright, but when copyright laws are bought and paid for my lobbyist slush funds, I don't feel any reason to give a shit about those laws. They were only ever utilitarian anyway, not some moral principle, and right now they're not even utilitarian.
Somehow I managed to build up a library of Steam games, $1-5 at a time. At that price I am willing to take my risks with possible inconveniences due to DRM and instead consider the convenience of being able to log into Steam anywhere and access my game library.
And though I am loath to admit it, I think "free to play" has shown that it can compete with piracy, though often by including dark patterns and slot machine mechanics to drive monetization.
It's also worth considering how much time you actually play the game. Mario Kart 8 delivered (for me at least) hundreds of hours of fun (often local multiplayer) gaming. If there's a game in that category, it can be worth saving up for (but the console itself can also be expensive.)
Greenheart Games famously released a "cracked" version of their own game (Game Dev Tycoon) onto torrent sites on launch day. In this version, the player's in-game studio eventually goes bankrupt because "pirates" steal their games.
The Data: Within 24 hours, 93.6% of players were playing the pirated version.
The Consequence: The developer's blog post highlighted the irony of pirates posting on forums complaining that the "in-game piracy" was unfair and "ruining" their fun. The experiment proved that even at a low price point ($8), a massive majority of the PC audience will choose "free" regardless of the developer's size or struggle.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161118042043/http://arstechnic...
https://web.archive.org/web/20131214165241/http://aussie-gam...
P.S.: It bears repeating that the game cost only 8 dollars.
Someone playing/watching/listening to something for free doesn't mean they would still do it if they had to pay for it.
(https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/eu-study-finds-piracy...)
It doesn't provide data suggesting that piracy doesn't hurt sales. It literally doesn't provide any data at all.
Several points:
* A pirate can pirate infinity +1 games for free, that will skew any statistic compared to legitimiate buyers that have to manage a finite budget. It also means that you aren't looking at 93% lost sales.
* It wasn't a new indy game, but a port of an existing mobile game, so I wouldn't be surprised if legitimate buyers weren't in a rush to get their hands on it on day one. The steam statistics from the first month mention a peak concurrent player count of over 7000 so it certainly didn't stay at 200 copies.
Most pirates aren't people who could pay for this stuff. This is utterly meaningless.
So much in fact I don't even want to link counter examples to it.
No/very few paying user pirates even single player games these days if they can afford it as a luxury please understand that.
I would likemy regular updates bug fixes patches and new feaures ASAP. And on sale at 8$ for a game is less than 0.01% of my income so sure.
But if it costs 800 USD I will get it for free because I am literally too poor for it.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is beyond deluded.
Instead of denuvo you can use simple steam drm, non trivial to pirate for small games cracks will take days or weeks to appear and updates won't be available instantly.
It's safe simple and easy. And doesn't hurt any one.
Denuvo is just invasive bullcrap that deluded people think helps anyone.
Steam DRM is trivial to the point where you may as well not use it and just release on GOG. Until the one actual cracker in combination with the hypervisor guys showed up a few months ago Denuvo had been unassailable for years.
It's not as trivial to crack for a relatively non invasive and easy to enable feature.
Denuvo is hardly uncrackable there's a big reason Rockstar went to their own anti piracy tools.
Seeing unhinged takes about Denuvo shilling on HN is nutz. Honestly well what I would expect from folks here.
If they would release only the paid game, there wouldn't be 93% + 7% of the gamers playing, far from it.
Cost is almost irrelevant to pirates, either its free or its not, like it or not. There is mix of folks who do it for the lulz, some do it to have higher performance gaming without denuvo taking resources and computing power, and some are outright poor. Even 8-usd-is-too-much poor.
I've lived like that. Don't judge too easily. Don't do stupid mistakes and count those as otherwise-paying-gamers. Thats PR for denuvo and similar, not a fair discussion.