Yes, except for the part where I confess I can't definitively prove it and the part where I say "seems." Of course, those are pretty freaking important points, so....Ec3437 said:It seems to me that you are committing the same type of fallacy that you claim DoPo is guilty of.
That's exactly my point. He claimed that they were pirated more than like the top five games on one of the biggest torrent sites combined.DoPo said:Technically, I could quote that guy from CDP, but I get what you mean. For some reason, I just took his word for it. And his numbers really are bullshit. 4.5 million...from estimation of torrent downloads. Sheesh, the actual reported numbers for the most torrented game that year didn't hit that number.
Except most people aren't talking "stopped" as in eradicated. I don't think more than a handful of people expect this to be some sort of panacea and they shouldn't be listened to, anyway. They should be mocked in subtle tones within earshot. >.>My problem is with people not realising what they are saying. They say "DRM is trying to stop piracy". Of course, it would be perfectly fine if they don't actually mean "stop" as "trying to eradicate" as they then turn and say "well, as we see, piracy isn't stopped" which of course would mean that it is ineffective. But since the goal isn't "eradicating" piracy, this means that it's stupid to call DRM out on those grounds.
Except the "random bloke" is not really necessary to the initial portion because of torrents. Does it matter, honestly, if I'm (hypothetically) distributing Hot Game Title 2012 from a copy I made myself or one I and seeding via torrent? The latter is actually more efficient for distribution, to boot. DRM has shown an occasional delay in the AAA market, one which comes at an obscene cost because everyone and their brother tries it. The smaller deals are less protected anyway, because they can't afford constantly evolving DRM schemes.Again, it's trying to stop random blokes from illegally distributing the game. Also, yes, sometimes (very often in the case of any popular game) it fails and zero day releases emerge. However, copy protection has so far been pretty consistent in not badly fucking up the first part. The second might be partly a logistical issue, but whatever the case, DRM has shown at least some delay in scene releases. Especially for non AAA releases and some slightly more obscure stuff (as in, there might be a dozen people who haven't heard of the game a month before release). And the odd few "successes" when it was more than a week or so. But all in all, some success looks more promising than no chance of success whatsoever. Therefore, it's a reasonable assumption that DRM does work to some degree. More than "none" would work.
And the lack of drastic or even significant changes in piracy rates hints at the opposite. This is the problem: If the end result is not in-step with the theory, then there's something wrong with the theory as applied practically.But it is not a far stretch to theorise that there would be more piracy, would there be no barrier for entry. After all - it's simple to give support for that - DRM delays some zero day releases, the absence of it doesn't delay any (unless absolutely nobody could be bothered uploading the game...which would work the same way for copy protected titles) and DRM stops some people who own the game from making copies of it, again the absence doesn't. Sure, this isn't a hard proof that copy protection works, but it hints at it.