Civ7 now includes Denuvo

[thecrazyscot]

I've no skin in this game as I've said, but I do enjoy the built-in measures devs sometimes put in to just make playing the game no fun for pirates. Imagine if you pirated a copy of Civ 7 and all AI were insanely aggressive, always at war with you, one-shotting all your units regardless of tech level and razing your capital within a few turns of starting each game.

Of course, these measures do nothing to prevent piracy in the first place. Or does it? I dunno. But the schadenfreude is priceless.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I mean ok:
1. Developers have right to protect their income and that's the thing which funds the game development, so we're in the same boat here
2. It's Firaxis business decision to include or not include Denuvo. We don't have the information Firaxis have, but it never stopped us from speculation, so why should it now?

In general pros of Denuvo are:
1. It's marketed as the strongest DRM solution and, in theory, this could force some people to buy the game they can't pirate
The cons are:
1. Bad reputation due to Denuvo Anti-Cheat. Firaxis seems to be really aware of this problem as they included Denuvo as potential reason not to buy the game in the survey. This actually leads to some people not buying the game (and the number could be even higher than the sale gain).
2. Money cost. Firaxis had to pay something to Denuvo, plain and simple
3. Integration and testing expenses - additional work for developers.
4. Potential performance hit - again I've seen claims what Denuvo performance effect is almost non-existent, but it was one testing on one game, which it far from Civ. I personally, don't buy claims about file decoding and online verification not affecting performance at all. While performance itself is not a business metric, it affects reviews, which, in turn, affect sales.

Once again, Firaxis has much more numbers to decide, but Denuvo doesn't look great to me.

EDIT: Of course it's bad reputation of Denuvo Anti-Cheat

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

And the research showed that the severeal months of protection effectively prevented falling sales caused by hacked copies.

I'd take that research with a grain of salt, though. Tobacco companies sponsored a lot of research studies to show that smoking had no effect on cancer. The magnitude of the supposed reduced sales in those first months didn't pass the smell test, at least to me. I find it hard to believe there are that many people, ready and willing to pay full price for a new release, who will bypass the simplicity of buying it via Steam in order to hunt out a pirated copy, especially when you consider the known loss of sales from potential buyers who avoid DRM products. I don't believe there are that many scuzzballs out there, although it does play into Denovu's rhetoric that potential pirates are a big part of your customer base and any of your customers who complain about Denovu are pirates.

 

[Leyrann]

I believe we're talking tangents to each other. I'm countering their claim that to address piracy you use Denuvo or not. That statement of theirs is not true. There are other methods of anti-piracy. Regardless of whether they work, or not, or even partial effective. The fact is other methods exist to try to counter piracy.

That is the height of sematics. And I'm saying that as an autistic person. Because:

The actual quote from the article is "there's two ways to protect a game against piracy, you don't or you use Denuvo".

If a method is not effective at combating piracy, then using that method does not protect the game against piracy.

In other words, all that Denuvo is claiming here is that they are the only functional way to prevent piracy. That is the claim you need to weigh as true or false. Not whether or not other attempts at preventing piracy exist.

I've no skin in this game as I've said, but I do enjoy the built-in measures devs sometimes put in to just make playing the game no fun for pirates. Imagine if you pirated a copy of Civ 7 and all AI were insanely aggressive, always at war with you, one-shotting all your units regardless of tech level and razing your capital within a few turns of starting each game.

Of course, these measures do nothing to prevent piracy in the first place. Or does it? I dunno. But the schadenfreude is priceless.

But then the game magically needs to be able to detect that it's pirated and change it's mechanics accordingly. It's highly likely that someone creating a pirated copy won't distribute that copy until they've fooled it into believing it's the official version. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if "try to detect that it's pirated, if so, just don't work" is one of the oldest methods of combating piracy. Which has the exact same software requirements as this idea.

And I agree that it's funny, but that doesn't mean it's even remotely feasible in reality.

1. Bad reputation due to Denuvo Anti-Tamper.

I believe you meant Denuvo Anti-Cheat here.

 

[gdr_willter]

I'd take that research with a grain of salt, though...

Sure, we are not enoughly informed about its effect. But not a few major studios and publishers include FXS and 2K already made their contracts with Denuvo, I consider it means they confirmed it positively works according to more specific raw datas from themselves and Denuvo. If they regard it's worthy, adopting Denuvo is just their choice. It's not my business, I felt nothing bad from the games with Denuvo Anti-Tamper I played.

 

[Gorbles]

I'd take that research with a grain of salt, though. Tobacco companies sponsored a lot of research studies to show that smoking had no effect on cancer. The magnitude of the supposed reduced sales in those first months didn't pass the smell test, at least to me. I find it hard to believe there are that many people, ready and willing to pay full price for a new release, who will bypass the simplicity of buying it via Steam in order to hunt out a pirated copy, especially when you consider the known loss of sales from potential buyers who avoid DRM products. I don't believe there are that many scuzzballs out there, although it does play into Denovu's rhetoric that potential pirates are a big part of your customer base and any of your customers who complain about Denovu are pirates.

Take anything you read with a grain of salt. But there's a difference between a grain of salt, and assuming it's false because the tobacco industry did something somewhat analogous. The good thing about the tobacco industry, and other off-topic industries and lobbyists, is that we know that these things happened. The bad thing is that they had to be exposed or otherwise proven for doing so.

But again, that's how evidence works. Without it it's merely conjecture, and given the standards imposed on Denuvo in this thread and elsewhere online (fairly, I might add), I think it's okay to ask for a basic level of proof when making claims about research allegedly being sponsored (to fix the results). It's quite the suggestion. Almost an accusation

As for game sales on release, all I have is an anecdotal "trust me bro", but from being adjacent to games and in indie games circles for years, an overwhelming amount of sales are made in the first 3 to 6 months. The research matches up with various case studies I've seen independent devs do over the years. What relevance this has to piracy downstream, I can't say.

 

[UWHabs]

The actual quote from the article is "there's two ways to protect a game against piracy, you don't or you use Denuvo".

Honestly, all this looks like a marketing bull****:
1. Denuvo technologies aren't super-unique, other DRM solutions work as well and most algorithms are pretty well-known (or have well-known analogues)
2. There's no solid proof what anti-pirate measures somehow increase sales at all. Nobody was able to launch the same game in the same conditions with and without DRM
(it's often argued what people who download pirate copies and people who buy games are just different audiences, you can't turn one to another. If you somehow delay pirated version, most of people who would pirate it just won't play it, not buy)

I mean, taking offense to Denuvo's marketing team saying "the only way to protect is to use Denuvo" is like getting upset that Smokey Bear says "Only YOU can protect against forest fires." I mean, yeah, there's plenty of other ways to protect against forest fires too.

Like, obviously it's exaggeration as part of their marketing strategy. The better question is if people would be equally upset if Firaxis used one of those other anti-piracy measure instead. The only reason we even know about this is that presumably Steam has some rule where publishers have to disclose some information when they use software like that (like how they have to disclose if you need a user account, or need to be online, or stuff like that). If 2K used some in-house anti-cheating software that did basically the exact same thing as Denuvo, nobody would even know about it.

Or would people be more upset if Civ didn't use an anti-piracy solution, but just conceded that a certain number of games might be pirated, and boosted the price for everyone else by 10% or something. Would people prefer that as a "solution"?

 

[imperfectpeter]

I don't agree. The developers and publishers have their right to earn fair price for their offering, just like the customers have their right to receive fair product at resonable price.
And I want they earn proper reward from their work to allow them to keep developing upcoming content well. We know that Civ franchise have made a nontrivial loss by piracy through all the previous titles.
Of course we have to argue about the price policy, but I don't think the anti-piracy is a controversial thing unless it extremely interrupt the playability of customers.

I never said that the business doesn't have a right to earn from their work, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Objectively, whether or not Fireaxis and Take Two make an extra few grand from anti-piracy measures (though I think that's highly questionable), has absolutely no impact on us consumers.


Now I agree that developers should be paid a fair wage for their work, but that has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. The devs aren't going to get a raise just because a few people didn't pirate, the only people who will get one are Denuvo and the shareholders.


If we were talking about a small indie company, I agree lost sales would have a more direct impact on the devs income. But we're not, we're talking about a multi-billion (!!) dollar company.

 

[Gedemon]

Or would people be more upset if Civ didn't use an anti-piracy solution, but just conceded that a certain number of games might be pirated, and boosted the price for everyone else by 10% or something. Would people prefer that as a "solution"?

it should be the other way, if Denuvo allows 2K to earn more money, then they should reflect that by lowering a bit the price, for a win/win situation instead of a win/loss situation.

 

[gdr_willter]

I never said that the business doesn't have a right to earn from their work, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Objectively, whether Fireaxis makes a extra few grand from anti-piracy measures (though I think that's highly questionable), has absolutely no impact on us consumers.
Now I agree that developers should be paid a fair wage for their work, but that has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. The devs aren't going to get a raise just because a few people didn't pirate, the only people who will get one are Denuvo and the shareholders.
If we were talking about a small indie company, I agree lost sales would have a more direct impact on the devs income. But we're not, we're talking about a multi-billion (!!) dollar company.

You're undervalueing the importance of developer's budget, it's not only affect to the fair payment...

 

[imperfectpeter]

You're undervalueing the importance of developer's budget, it's not only affect to the fair payment...

So explain then- what would be the effect on us as consumers if Take Two did make a little extra cash from anti-piracy measures?

 

[gdr_willter]

So explain then- what would be the effect on us as consumers if Take Two did make a little extra cash from anti-piracy measures?

I doubt your opinion that it only cause a little extra cash.
I remember those who complaining about the quality of the leader graphic, limited amount of civs, historical inaccurateness, and so on. More budget can solve this by employing more graphic artists, more developers, and more historians.
If you think "they will not do that because they are evil capitalist", well.. have a good day.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Sure, we are not enoughly informed about its effect. But not a few major studios and publishers include FXS and 2K already made their contracts with Denuvo, I consider it means they confirmed it positively works according to more specific raw datas from themselves and Denuvo.

That's fair, but the flip side is that most studios do not do this and most games are released without any additions like Denovu. So by that logic, it suggests that most game developers have come to a different conclusion to FXS/2K. I absolutely agree that 2K should make the choice that they think is right for them. That's what I'll do.

Take anything you read with a grain of salt. But there's a difference between a grain of salt, and assuming it's false because the tobacco industry did something somewhat analogous. The good thing about the tobacco industry, and other off-topic industries and lobbyists, is that we know that these things happened. The bad thing is that they had to be exposed or otherwise proven for doing so.

But again, that's how evidence works. Without it it's merely conjecture, and given the standards imposed on Denuvo in this thread and elsewhere online (fairly, I might add), I think it's okay to ask for a basic level of proof when making claims about research allegedly being sponsored (to fix the results). It's quite the suggestion. Almost an accusation

As for game sales on release, all I have is an anecdotal "trust me bro", but from being adjacent to games and in indie games circles for years, an overwhelming amount of sales are made in the first 3 to 6 months. The research matches up with various case studies I've seen independent devs do over the years. What relevance this has to piracy downstream, I can't say.

I'm not actually assuming its false. I'm not discounting it to zero. But I'm not accepting it at 100%, either. And the outcome of studies can be influenced by a lot of things, it's not necessarily malfeasance. How you ask questions result in different answers in polls, how you structure these sorts of extrapolation exercises (because the direct data is not available) can affect the outcome of that exercise. In most industries, you'd look to multiple studies, using multiple methodologies, conducted by different people being paid by different parties. That's not something we're going to get. Why did we get any study? It looks to me like we got it because Denovu wanted to position their service in a positive light. I think its reasonable to consider the outcome in light of the objective.

And sure, the majority of sales happening in the first 3 to 6 months assertion is reasonable. That's not an unknowable, every game company has that data about their games and Steam has it for the whole industry. It'd be silly to misstate something knowable.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I mean, taking offense to Denuvo's marketing team saying "the only way to protect is to use Denuvo" is like getting upset that Smokey Bear says "Only YOU can protect against forest fires." I mean, yeah, there's plenty of other ways to protect against forest fires too.

Like, obviously it's exaggeration as part of their marketing strategy. The better question is if people would be equally upset if Firaxis used one of those other anti-piracy measure instead. The only reason we even know about this is that presumably Steam has some rule where publishers have to disclose some information when they use software like that (like how they have to disclose if you need a user account, or need to be online, or stuff like that). If 2K used some in-house anti-cheating software that did basically the exact same thing as Denuvo, nobody would even know about it.

Or would people be more upset if Civ didn't use an anti-piracy solution, but just conceded that a certain number of games might be pirated, and boosted the price for everyone else by 10% or something. Would people prefer that as a "solution"?

1. When you write "people" you address quite different audiences. Those "people" who refuse to buy the game because of Denuvo, and "people" who speculate here about Firaxis business strategy are not the same.
2. As I wrote, the statement of Denuvo inclusion being equal to earning more money is quite questionable. In some cases Denuvo inclusion means less money. And, again, as I wrote, Firaxis are aware of this possibility and they are actually still researching the market, based on the point in survey they released.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

it should be the other way, if Denuvo allows 2K to earn more money, then they should reflect that by lowering a bit the price, for a win/win situation instead of a win/loss situation.

I don't think that's how game prices get set. They get set to maximize total revenues based on X price times Y sales, where these is an inverse relationship between X and Y (the higher the price X, the lower the sales Y). If anti-piracy software increases Y across the board, that doesn't affect the decision of where to set X.

 

[Leyrann]

I don't think that's how game prices get set. They get set to maximize total revenues based on X price times Y sales, where these is an inverse relationship between X and Y (the higher the price X, the lower the sales Y). If anti-piracy software increases Y across the board, that doesn't affect the decision of where to set X.

Anti-software piracy might affect that, as it might affect the maximum price people are willing to pay before deciding the extra effort of piracy is a better option (assuming there is a not-insignificant number of people who pirate games if they find them too expensive, which obviously isn't a given).

 

[imperfectpeter]

I doubt your opinion that it only cause a little extra cash.

That's okay I also doubt that opinion, because I'm not sure it would result in any extra cash.

I remember those who complaining about the quality of the leader graphic, limited amount of civs, historical inaccurateness, and so on. More budget can solve this by employing more graphic artists, more developers, and more historians.

That's just the thing though, there is zero evidence that 'more sales as a result of anti-piracy' (dubious), equals 'executives decide to put more money into improving the art of the game'. I mean when you think of it from their POV, why would they? What's the incentive there?

And as others have already pointed, other games with DRM like Denuvo (which is very much a tiny minority of games) are not higher quality, nor are they cheaper, nor do they have better paid dev teams.

If you think "they will not do that because they are evil capitalist", well.. have a good day.

A bit cheeky and dismissive of what I've been saying, but thank you I will

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not actually assuming its false. I'm not discounting it to zero. But I'm not accepting it at 100%, either. And the outcome of studies can be influenced by a lot of things, it's not necessarily malfeasance. How you ask questions result in different answers in polls, how you structure these sorts of extrapolation exercises (because the direct data is not available) can affect the outcome of that exercise. In most industries, you'd look to multiple studies, using multiple methodologies, conducted by different people being paid by different parties. That's not something we're going to get. Why did we get any study? It looks to me like we got it because Denovu wanted to position their service in a positive light. I think its reasonable to consider the outcome in light of the objective.

And sure, the majority of sales happening in the first 3 to 6 months assertion is reasonable. That's not an unknowable, every game company has that data about their games and Steam has it for the whole industry. It'd be silly to misstate something knowable.

Logically, if the greatest sales happen in the first 3 to 6 months, then any loss of sales is also greatest in that period.

 

[Leyrann]

That's just the thing though, there is zero evidence that 'more sales as a result of anti-piracy' (dubious), equals 'executives decide to put more money into improving the art of the game'. I mean when you think of it from their POV, why would they? What's the incentive there?

If they can improve the game, that will lead to more sales, which means they turned the money into more money.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Anti-software piracy might affect that, as it might affect the maximum price people are willing to pay before deciding the extra effort of piracy is a better option (assuming there is a not-insignificant number of people who pirate games if they find them too expensive, which obviously isn't a given).

Agreed, there are nuances my blanket statement didn't catch. Although I think that in your example, that likely raises X, since making piracy more challenging would allow the company to raise X more without losing as much Y as they otherwise would.