I don't know your social circle, but I have a lot of friends that will wait a year or two for titles to go on Steam sales for 40%+ off launch day pricing. You're oversimplifying the revenue model of AAA games.
You're assuming the people who buy it in the first two weeks are the same people as the people who pirate it.
When the people who pirate it are mostly the people who can't afford to pay for it, they weren't going to buy it under any circumstances and how long it takes to break the DRM only determines how long they have to wait before they pirate it.
The point is that we're not talking about the up front sales, because those are the people who can afford it, not the people who pirate it because they can't.
They eventually mark the games down by 40+% because they know there are people who don't buy them because they can't afford them. They're after the people who would be pirates (or just not have the game at all) at the original price, and they do it because those people exist.
But the DRM can't do anything about those sales when it's broken by the time the price is reduced, and it can't do anything about the people who pirate the game because they can't afford even that price.
I guess I'm not sure if we in disagreement or not, or which part of what I said you are objecting to.
If you are only saying that some pirates would never buy the game, or that DRM also saves money later in the game lifecycle, I totally agree.
If you are claiming that all or most pirates cant afford the game, or that people who afford it wouldn't download a crack instead, I disagree.
My position is that DRM save companies a tremendous amount of money, mostly in the post release period, but also later. I think that many, people who bought the game would pirate instead if the crack existed and was easily accessible. I am saying that most sales occur early in the lifestyle when DRM is generally more effective. Do you agree?
>DRM can't do anything about those sales when it's broken by the time the price is reduced, and it can't do anything about the people who pirate the game because they can't afford even that price.
I agree that DRM cant make a broke person buy the game or stop a dedicated pirate after it is cracked.
> If you are claiming that all or most pirates cant afford the game, or that people who afford it wouldn't download a crack instead, I disagree.
Then this is what we're disagreeing about, because most people who can afford the game have no reason to deal with the trouble of pirating it.
This isn't to say that if a crack is available immediately there won't be a ton of pirates. They're just mostly not the same people who were paying. In many cases it goes the other way: Someone doesn't know if the game is worth it, so they wouldn't have bought it but they would pirate it to try it out, and then after they figure out they like it, they buy it (e.g. so they can play multiplayer). Especially when the version they buy isn't less convenient than the version they pirate.
Thanks for clarifying. It would be interesting to know what portion of pirates cant afford the game and what the conversion rate is.
I suspect we each have our own anecdotal experience and there isn't clear data one way or another. For example, I have known probably two dozen pirates and every single one of them could afford the games but were just frugal. Probably half would have bought the game at if it was the only option, and half the games would not be bought at any price. Perhaps 1/20 somehow led to a conversion for disabled functionality.
I have never once met someone who bought a game after having installed a fully functional crack.
Also, part of the point of DRM is to make it more complicated to pirate and instal a game, even if the crack is available.
The people who wait a year to buy a game with 40% off launch day pricing make no where near the majority of revenue for publishers.
Most of the revenue for a single player game, like RDR, is made in the first couple weeks and tapers off. By the next year the sister studio is releasing the sequel to the game.
