> After 12 weeks, new sales are so negligible that "developers could eventually remove unpopular DRM schemes with minimal losses (and possible gains from strongly DRM-averse consumers)," Volckmann suggests (and some publishers have done just that after Denuvo is no longer effectively protecting new sales).

We're probably a tiny fraction of the overall consumer base, but I'm hopeful that companies do take this finding to heart and pull Denuvo once the 12-week stress period ends, because that's certainly costing at least SOME customers.

I wonder if the same rate-of-user-reviews metric picks up the hypothetical uptick in sales after Denuvo gets removed. I recall some discussion about that re:the Dishonored games but I can't seem to find firm numbers.

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

You can tell from the "seeders" numbers on pirated games that piracy is in fact extremely niche. The fitgirl repack of "Dragon Ball: Sparkling Zero" has 3,400 seeders and 58,000 concurrent players on Steam.

I remember when Steam and GOG used to act like consumer refunds would be used to steal from them too, back when Steam had their illegal no-refund policy and GOG had a contrived obstacle course of excuses to refuse them.

But what about the numbers for when a game company's agreement with Denuvo ends? I pirate initially when cracked and then if I like the game and have the money I buy when the publisher removes the DRM. I mean, heck, you get so much better of an Experience when you pirate a game because the DRM isn't impacting performance and a lot of the time you get all of the DLC and pre-order bonuses too.