Except that wasn't at all the point you seemed to be trying to make. You challenged the notion that DRM can effect sales, even demanded shmerl produce a sign from the analytics gods to back his statement, and then produced what appeared to be counter proof. Yet the only thing you proved is that a DRM game can make money. So what? That wasn't being disputed.

What was being said is that DRM has the potential to decrease total sales. For that to be true only one person ever, for all games of all times, has to see DRM and say no; or even just say "not until it's $5". If that has happened once then that is a factual statement. Does that mean it outweighs piracy concerns? No. Is if fair to then say "those people are likely statistically irrelevant if they exist at all; see Diablo III and Rocket League"? Sure.

If "success is possible with DRM so we might as well keep it" is the point then fine. It just didn't sound like that was the point, which was my point.

Does DRM really decrease sales or decrease piracy, or both? I don't know. I just know that I don't own any pirate games by choice, not because it's hard. I also know DRM is generally the single biggest factor in my decision to buy games. I most certainly don't don't own D3 or have Rocket League even though I know people that do, and if I had to count the number of times I saw DRM and went from "maybe" to "nope" then I couldn't. Am I statistically irrelevant? Probably, but I'm OK with that.

Thanks for the links.

One interesting quote from http://www.ivey.uwo.ca/faculty/research/impact/vol21no4-zhang/

"Her results showed that relaxing sharing restrictions by dropping DRM not only increases music sales on average but also facilitates the discovery of new songs and artists by consumers."

Discovery of (independent) new artists is of course not what the big producers want. So the DRM culture may be quite helpful for the "top dogs" to stay there. Which may also be an important reason for it being propagated so strongly by them.

Even if discovery doesn't bother them since they spend millions on marketing, it doesn't mean DRM isn't decreasing their sales potential. It always does. Practically, today usage of DRM is not dictated by interest of increasing sales and concerns for piracy as I already said above. The usual reason is control over the market (such as lock-in and the like). To put it in simpler terms, they usually have two common urges - money and power. Money comes from more sales, power comes from limiting users' choices - i.e. control. Some just like power of being gatekeepers and censors, even if it bites them in the back by reducing sales.

Well I commend you for making the point better than I did, which is that yes those that choose DRM-Free (meaning users never buy a DRM game) are statistically irrelevant in the overall sales pictures as far as developers are concerned. Even on GoG, can any die-hard DRM-Free advocate say what percentage of GoG users are strictly 'DRM-Free' (meaning never buy a game off Steam no matter how low the price goes)? 50%? Less? You think publishers don't know this? You think they don't scout places like the GoG forums and although DRM-Free is a fevered pitch on here, you'll still find plenty of threads that talk about Steam sales and Steam in general.

Yea, they are losing sales to DRM-Free. Is it a drop in the bucket? I know this, Steam isn't losing customers due to DRM-Free, at least not in any significant clip considering they continue to pump out press releases showing concurrent user records using their service.

I doubt 30% of lost sales are statistically irrelevant, and some estimate them to be around that amount. Those who use DRM don't care about losing money on it however. They do it for other reasons.
They know DRM reduces their sales, no one disputes that. So let's repeat - DRM isn't about sales, DRM isn't about sales.

Your 30% number applies to music, not to games. It's also a different marketplace. But let's say it was 30%. Do we know for a fact that all of that 30% never would buy a DRM game if that game was only available DRM'ed? I'll say it again, DRM does not reduce sales enough where publishers stand and take notice where it affects their bottom line. If this was the case there would be a ton more releases here. It is simply not impacting the bottom line enough to cause a blip on the radar. Steam has been in business now for 10+ years and in that 10 years they have not changed their business model one iota, in fact in many ways they have reinforced it. It's not because all these publishers are locking their games to DRM. It's because consumers are buying them.

What we know is that DRM can decrease sales on significant amount (30% is not a small portion). I.e by dropping DRM they get more sales by doing less (they even save on DRM implementation itself). And as gooberking said, it doesn't matter whether it's 30% or not. It can be anything from zero and up. So the fact that they are ready to lose those sales means that they value DRM on its own. So the main question is, what exactly do they value in it? And I already brought above a few reasons why they value it. I.e. it's not all measured in sales (i.e. profits).

It does, but they use it despite losing money. You need to analyze why.

Yes they use DRM to control their product, that is the point about DRM in general. And I'm telling you they don't care about lost sales to DRM-Free because in many instances it is a drop in the bucket in the bigger picture. Rocket League may be losing potential sales because their title isn't DRM-Free but when you sell over a million copies you can live with that.

Want it to be bigger than a drop? Have more buyers stop buying games from Steam (and other DRM platforms). The buyer is the one that's ultimately controlling the market.

If it is a publicly traded company then the only convincing necessary may be making the shareholders believe the "DRM = lost sales" claim. They usually are in it for the $$$ and not some "random esoteric" stuff which does not show in the (financial) results.

The same does not hold for the executives of such companies - their interests often do not align with those of the shareholders and they will happily use "common knowledge" like "DRM is necessary" to defend their leadership - independent of the truth of the matter.
In my understanding a large part of the reason for the prevalence of DRM is simply due to contemporary corporate culture regarding the topic: There is a topic which comes up (piracy). Then some executives discuss what to do about it - in respect to piracy they have little knowledge and no control (they dont like that) - and take the "easy route": Use DRM - preferably "better" DRM than the last time so that they can show some (imaginary or real - they dont really care) progress. Or in other words: It is "better" to take some action (even risking that it may have a negative influence) than simply "do nothing".

Yes, it's similar to what I meant above. Usage of DRM is usually driven by some psychological / sociological reasons (bad ones, such as craving for power and control or interest to cover one's incompetence), and not by business reasons, since business logic here is simple - no DRM, more profit.

In some cases such control actually translates into market capture, which they can view as an anti-competitive business advantage. I.e. stuff like lock-in. It's crooked all the same, but it can in end up as more profit for them, and in such cases shareholders can be OK with that as well.

My sentiments as well, the execs know they're losing sales, and we know that they know. What is important now is how can we get these companies to change? Unfortunately, I agree that the corporate suits do things that may not even favor shareholders if it favors themselves enough, and that is where we are at - they know DRM lowers sales (how much is another issue), but they do it anyway.

How many lost sales is enough so that the corporate execs can no longer ignore it, lest they are fine being booted out by shareholders? How many gamers have to stop buying from Steam and start supporting GOG and other DRM-free avenues? And why did Ubisoft release Rayman Origins COMPLETELY DRM-free from day one, but pack Rayman Legends with uPlay?

I will buy most of the games i want on GOG, and a few on Steam.
Whatever is strictly restricted to Uplay or Origin won't be bought from me under the current circumstances.

And that's cause one Full-DRM-Platform is enough for me.
I also believe i've picked the least of all evils [STEAM].

So yeah, as long as their game is not on STEAM or GOG GALAXY, i won't buy it.
In fact, the reasons for me to buy it on STEAM have diminished. Not that i don't love Valve, but i'd rather help GOG much more and wait for 2 or more years for a game to appear here.

You remember how the situation was, right? Few years ago the Fallout games were pulled out of GOG and It felt like Bethesda/Zenimax swore an oath to be DRM-FULL for the rest of eternity. They used to ignore all fan emails and begging them to bring games here.
Yet here we are! And i will eventually buy all their games here! (i have no intention to buy them from STEAM).

So i believe it's only a matter of time to bring a few more of those big publishers in here.

My 2 cents.

In a way it is, it regulates the re-sale market

So you refuse to buy directly from a company and you would rather buy from a third-party re-seller?
Yes, the three people that did not buy it would have bought it if it had not been tied to Steam.