Look, I'm not here for a pointless back and forth where we just call each other wrong over and over again, so I'm making one last comment then I'm leaving it at that.

The interviewer asked him to give an explanation for why people hate Denuvo. The reasons are varied, so no matter what he says, that answer is not going to represent every single gamer.

Yes, his major hypothesis being that the most vocal people about these apparently non-existent issues (their critics) are the pirate community who want game publishers not to use Denuvo's software, and as such influence non-pirates who don't see any benefit to using Denuvo (because it adds bloat and messes with their games).

Basically, two different parties are going into online discussions with their own relatively biased goals of changing opinions about Denuvo. [...] He's making the point that pirate groups are the other.

Which is to say that he thinks the ones trying to influence people away from Denuvo, as in those criticising Denuvo for its issues, are pirates.

You grasp that, yet when I say the quiet part out loud that they're implying all their critics are pirates, you disagree with me.

Nowhere in that paragraph that I quoted did I see anything even implying "All gamers are X"

And nowhere in my post did I imply he meant all gamers were pirates. I said he believes their critics are salty pirates, as to dismiss those in the gaming community whoare vocal about thinking Denuvo hurts their games.

Lastly, what did you even mean about burning a bridge?

This whole article is about Denuvo attempting to win back over the gaming community, so them turning around and effectively labeling the most vocal in the community as pirates is (in a phrase) burning the bridge with thr gamimg community they're claiming to be trying to fix.

Clearly we disagree on the interpretation of what this guy said, and I doubt any comment I could make would sway yo on that front, but I don't think it's a very hard conclusion to draw based on his own words.