Well, we are running in circles in here, are not we? These studies do not seem to be able to explain why the console DRM is not reducing sales. So you come with some other explanations instead of DRM. Which is something I expected because the whole premise seems very unnatural to me. Some intrusive and complicated DRM schemes might be able to affect sales negatively but there are just not that many people who have emotional reaction to DRM. I would not buy a game that required me to enter code from manual myself. I would not buy a game that depends on some central server verification. Not because I am religiously opposed to DRM but because it's asking for too much of my attention. I am just fine with console games - they just work.

On the other hand, the PS2 modchips required 20+ wires soldering and expensive at the time DVD-R technology. A lot of people went for that. So, while there are some people who infringe just because it's free, there are also people who infringe just because it's somewhat cheaper. The later category is converted to paying customers with the DRM.

How do you know it doesn't? I don't think you have any easy way to measure that. As I said before, console sales numbers relate to the way the market shifted. They can as well be even higher if not for DRM.

> Which is something I expected because the whole premise seems very unnatural to me.

The premise is very natural. Reduced usability means crippled product (in some way). Crippled product means some users will more likely to avoid it. Pretty straightforward and iron logic no DRM proponent can deny. But they don't function according to common sense, or as I already said they use DRM not for anything related to sales, but for completely different reasons.

> while there are some people who infringe just because it's free, there are also people who infringe just because it's somewhat cheaper.

And of course there are those who break DRM for sport just because they like breaking it. I.e. if not for DRM they wouldn't even have paid attention. A clear example when DRM boosts piracy directly.

> The later category is converted to paying customers with the DRM.

Not at all. The later category stays a non paying customer, since why should they buy the same thing with DRM when pirates offer them it without it? I.e. without crippled usability? The only thing that can convince them to become paying customers is the same product offered without DRM by legitimate source. That's because that DRM is always broken.

What you are engaging into (and in pretty much every single message I've seen you post on the subject of DRM) is shifting the burden of proof. This is the same kind of argument we get from creationists or people who want the world to conform to a mental model they have ("The Earth is 4.7 billion years" "How do you know, were you there?").

Strong correlations have been observed between the presence of DRM and strong sales (for games that are worth it). The most obvious examples of this phenomenon would be World of Warcraft, Sim City 5 and Diablo. These games are very close to being impossible to pirate, are extremely high quality and have sold millions of copies.

All you have against the claim that DRM for good games seems to help sales is requesting certainty, but you're the one making the claim that DRM hurts sales, so the burden of proof is on you. I know you really, really want it to be the case, but so far, you've offered very little convincing evidence (not even circumstantial).

I dislike DRM and as a regular buyer of games, it's often been more of a pain than anything else, but I'm also a software engineer and I can't help but acknowledge that it works with sales.

There was already proof that DRM decreases sales however. But I've seen none that it helps anyone except those who pursue lock-in and other corrupted practices. DRM has no place in any ethical business.

> Strong correlations have been observed between the presence of DRM and strong sales

Can you point to any studies on this subject please? There are published studies in the other direction. Sales numbers can't simply be attributed to DRM because DRM is broken. Even latest upstart Denuvo was broken not long ago. So the theory of sales coming from DRM is easily refuted by reality.

> All you have against the claim that DRM for good games seems to help sales is requesting certainty,

No, what I have is certainty that DRM serves nothing related to sales. If anyobe still thinks that DRM is used for sales they are simply delusional or are akin to Lysenkoists who thought that plants can be trained to grow in cold climate.

> I'm also a software engineer and I can't help but acknowledge that it works with sales.

And your acknowledgement is based on what exactly? All engineers I spoke about it clearly say that DRM is dumb and never serves any useful purpose (and if it serves any, that purpose is crooked).

> Can you point to any studies on this subject please?

I said "have been observed" and I gave three examples of games where DRM correlated with strong sales.

You are still repeating "There are studies proving the inverse" without ever referencing them.

What I'm repeating and will be repeating is that such unethical methods like DRM have no place in any decent business. And they don't help sales of course. All they help are some crooks who want more control over the market or technology (DCMA-1201 and similar laws is their leverage on top of DRM).

That's great, you have opinions. A lot of people have those.

>Not at all. The later category stays a non paying customer, since why should they buy the same thing with DRM when pirates offer them it without it?

Pirates are not offering the PS4 and X1 games without DRM. Please, talk about something you know.

Because their DRM is one of the most intrusive ones. It will be broken as well, don't worry. No DRM will ever be unbrekable, that's the nature of it. Of course the more intrusive garbage they pile into it, the longer it can take to crack it. PS4 and XB1 won't be an exception though.