This is a Denuvo marketing story, simple as. Denuvo initially sold itself as the uncrackable DRM. Then it got cracked, now they sell themselves as the 'temporarily uncrackable DRM', and they're very desperate to show us that it actually works, for a while. Their livelihood is on the line.
I don't think the study's conclusions in isolation are wrong. But they are wrong when applied to support the thesis that this somehow helps the bottom line of publishers. The study is simply incapable of measuring that, because the game didn't get released both with and without Denuvo, nor with and without a cracked Denuvo, at the same time.
Its really that simple.
And then there's this little nugget:
View attachment 367527
View attachment 367528
The bottom part of this says about games in layman's terms: 'good games sell anyway'. Even if you got it illegally, if you keep playing, you'll start paying. This relates strongly to emotional and ethical effects: it just doesn't feel right not to pay for something that you really like. You'll also consider that if you want more of it, you need to fund it. And the latter is the exact reason we have such a vibrant indie industry now. Its all purely based on goodwill and those studios barely even consider Denuvo, its far more profitable to get community support.