Support NeoGAF

[Bullet Club]

Hitman 2’s Denuvo Protection Cracked Three Days Before Launch

Hitman 2 is due to hit the streets on November 13, protected by the most up-to-date variant of Denuvo's anti-tamper technology. However, a cracking group appears to have obtained a version of the game destined for pre-order buyers, cracked it, and released it online three days early. Just last week, Denuvo suggested that four days protection could prove significant for game sales.

Protecting video games from piracy has become big business over the years. The latest games consoles from Sony and Microsoft appear relatively secure but the same cannot be said about PC titles.

Due to the fact that PC games are loaded onto a platform that is instantly accessible to hackers, it’s almost inevitable that any games worth having will have their piracy protections removed at some point and leak online for all to download.

The company on the anti-piracy frontlines is Denuvo. Its anti-tamper technology is fiendishly difficult to crack and as such it regularly finds its way on to many of the gaming world’s most cherished titles. However, Denuvo is not infallible so regularly finds itself targeted by crackers.

This weekend, the technology suffered yet another disappointing blow. The long-awaiting stealth game Hitman 2 – which comes ‘protected’ by the latest variant of Denuvo (v5.3) – leaked online. Aside from having its protection circumvented, this happened three days before the title’s official launch on November 13.

It appears that a relatively new cracking group called FCKDRM (more on them in a moment) obtained a version of Hitman 2 that was only available to those who pre-ordered the game. There are some reports of the crack failing at times on some machines but nevertheless, this leak is important on a number of fronts.

Firstly, the game leaked online three days early, rendering the protection when the game finally comes out much less useful. Secondly, presuming the original copy of the game was obtained on Friday when the pre-order copy was delivered, it took just a single day for the group to crack Denuvo’s latest protection.

Considering an announcement made by Denuvo just last week, this is a pretty embarrassing turn of events. Denuvo’s aim is to protect games in their initial release window and according to the company, having no protection can result in millions of dollars in potential lost revenue in just a couple of weeks.

To be on the safe side, however, the company also highlighted the importance of protecting games for just four days (notably a couple of Denuvo-protected titles recently withstood attack for the same number period). Winding back further still, the company said that even providing protection for an hour is worthwhile. Clearly, minus three days didn’t figure into Denuvo’s plans.

While several groups have been chipping away at Denuvo for some time, FCKDRM is a new entrant (at least by branding) to the cracking scene. Notably, FCKDRM isn’t a ‘Scene’ group but one that works in P2P circles. At least for now, their identities remain a secret but their choice of name is interesting.

FCKDRM is the official name for the anti-DRM initiative recently launched by GOG, a digital distribution platform for DRM-free video games and video.
There’s no suggestion at all that GOG is involved in the cracking of Denuvo, of course, but the FCKDRM group are using GOG’s FCKDRM logo when announcing releases, which certainly has the potential to confuse casual pirates.

Given that Denuvo 5.3 was cracked so quickly (some crashing issues aside) it raises questions about other upcoming titles set to use similar technology. They include Battlefield V from EA/DICE, which has its official full release on November 20 but is already available to early access players.

TorentFreak

 

[LucidFeuer]

Good, whenever I possess the legal licence and they force these DRM shit on it, it's perfectly legal for me to crack it, which I do.

 

[Kadayi]

Personally, I'm not against people protecting their livelihood. Game development is an expensive thing and those initial sales can be the difference between a studio staying in the green or shuttering. In before 'DRM? I'm gonna pirate all IOIs games now'

 

[Dontero]

It is kind of amazing that in 2018 when GTA5 sold about 100mln copies and it has been cracked basically from release date people still claim that pirates are problem and companies pursue those DRM practices.

With denovo we actually got confirmation if pirate effect is real. Back when steam-spy reported accurate data games that have been cracked in few days after release had shown no difference in amount of people buying and there was no downward trend in sales starting from day when crack was released.

There have been studies in music industry showing that people who pirate music the most are also the one that are buying legally the most.

That GTA5 subject should show you that problem are not pirates but games themselves and marketing.

 

[Kadayi]

It is kind of amazing that in 2018 when GTA5 sold about 100mln copies and it has been cracked basically from release date people still claim that pirates are problem and companies pursue those DRM practices.

Release date? GTA V wasn't launched concurrently with the consoles. Mayhap it might have been cracked when it was launched on PC perhaps, but by that point, the game had already garnered a huge number of sales elsewhere. On top of that, you're talking about GTA series of all things. Few if any games even come close to selling remotely anywhere as many unit sales as a GTA title.

Everyone knows that Hitman Season 1 despite critical acclaim didn't exactly break any sales records because the episodic nature didn't gel with the player base, so much so that SE basically let IO go and allowed them to take the IP with them, so albeit they've partnered with Warner on the publishing, if Hitman 2 doesn't necessarily sell that well there's every possibility the company could end up in serious trouble. So I wouldn't be so eager to play off Piracy as no big deal.

 

[stranno]

It is kind of amazing that in 2018 when GTA5 sold about 100mln copies and it has been cracked basically from release date people still claim that pirates are problem and companies pursue those DRM practices.

GTAV used ARXAN + custom triggers. It took quite a bit releases of RELOADED to patch every one of those custom triggers (and maybe not all of them are patched nowdays) so crashes probably lead most cracked release players to actually buy the game. I think it was a far better option for Rockstar than Denuvo.

 

[Darak]

The game has already been released, though. Some users are blocked from playing for a few days because they didn't pay the full 100 $/€, but the game is certainly out.

It's a despicable practice, but it's pretty common nowadays.

 

[klosos]

i mean i understand why developers use Denovo or other protection i really do , However its pointless because all it does is give a challenge to different cracking groups , that will crack it sooner or later.

i think they are better of by not having protection , and saying that they don't believe in DRM , think of the good PR they will have with Gamers , i mean look how CD project have took advantage of it and are seen in such a good light.

 

[Alexander DeLarge]

Personally, I'm not against people protecting their livelihood. Game development is an expensive thing and those initial sales can be the difference between a studio staying in the green or shuttering. In before 'DRM? I'm gonna pirate all IOIs games now'

DRM doesn't protect anything, in fact, before the GDPR made the data private, we could easily conclude that not only did Denuvo games not sell better than non-Denuvo games, they didn't even outsell games within the same franchises. I think it speaks volumes that IO removed Denuvo literally the first update after announcing their independence and now that they've made another deal with another devil, it's back under WB Games.

Since we're talking initial release windows, it needs to be pointed out that the overwhelming majority of titles have been cracked and haven't received removals even years after they've been piratable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo#List_of_games_using_Denuvo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo#List_of_games_formerly_using_Denuvo

I certainly don't feel comfortable putting my games in the hands of some DRM company's authentication server, who happen to be the same people who were responsible for SecuROM, which was abandoned after only six years seven years ago.

Good, whenever I possess the legal licence and they force these DRM shit on it, it's perfectly legal for me to crack it, which I do.

Exactly. Every time a Denuvo title is cracked, it's a win for the legitimate user because one day, there's a good chance we'll be using those cracks too.

 

[Kadayi]

DRM doesn't protect anything, in fact, before the GDPR made the data private, we could easily conclude that not only did Denuvo games not sell better than non-Denuvo games, they didn't even outsell games within the same franchises. I think it speaks volumes that IO removed Denuvo literally the first update after announcing their independence and now that they've made another deal with another devil, it's back under WB Games.

I suspect WB likely demanded it.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

DRM is a response to piracy.
Anyone who argues that piracy is a legitimate response to DRM is actually justifying the existence of DRM in the first place.
DRM will stop after piracy stops, not before.

Worth noting:
DRM-free games get pirated. I've seen free games be pirated. I've seen games with demos pirated. I've yet to witness any pro-piracy argument that holds up to a degree of moral and logical scrutiny.

 

[RedVIper]

DRM is a response to piracy.
Anyone who argues that piracy is a legitimate response to DRM is actually justifying the existence of DRM in the first place.
DRM will stop after piracy stops, not before.

Worth noting:
DRM-free games get pirated. I've seen free games be pirated. I've seen games with demos pirated. I've yet to witness any pro-piracy argument that holds up to a degree of moral and logical scrutiny.

My argument is, piracy is more likely to help sales than actually hurt it, besides all the bad press you get for implementing stuff like Denuvo in your game ( And the positive one that you get if you don't) you also have acess to a bunch of people who wouldn't buy your game either way, after trying the game they might decide you're worth spending money on and buy the game/ future installments.

Denuvo also isn't free, you're paying for something that might or might not help you in anyway.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

My argument is, piracy is more likely to help sales than actually hurt it, besides all the bad press you get for implementing stuff like Denuvo in your game ( And the positive one that you get if you don't) you also have acess to a bunch of people who wouldn't buy your game either way, after trying the game they might decide you're worth spending money on and buy the game/ future installments.

Denuvo also isn't free, you're paying for something that might or might not help you in anyway.

Talk is cheap. People complain a lot. But they still open their wallets.
Unlike pirates, businesses need to return a profit, show growth and are beholden to regulations and shareholders. Logically, if using DRM was impacting their bottom line to such a degree then they would change.

 

[brian0057]

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem, If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24/7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

"Prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become [Steam's] largest market in Europe,"

"Our success comes from making sure that both customers and partners (e.g. Activision, Take 2, Ubisoft...) feel like they get a lot of value from those services, and that they can trust us not to take advantage of the relationship that we have with them."

- Gabe Newell, 2011 interview.

Source

 

[Kadayi]

Denuvo also isn't free, you're paying for something that might or might not help you in anyway.

Do you keep your front door unlocked? Or your car? Or your phone? At what point is the cut off for you protecting your own self-interest exactly?

 

[RedVIper]

Talk is cheap. People complain a lot. But they still open their wallets.
Unlike pirates, businesses need to return a profit, show growth and are beholden to regulations and shareholders. Logically, if using DRM was impacting their bottom line to such a degree then they would change.

My entire point is that it either makes no difference or it has some long term benefit. I've also seen no evidence that it actually hurts sales, so if you want to show me that I'd be happy to read it.

Do you keep your front door unlocked? Or your car? Or your phone? At what point is the cut off for you protecting your own self-interest exactly?

(I do actually its pretty common where I live but I get your point). Going on from your analogy, I can keep my front door locked but if someone wants to come in and take my shit they will anyway and they'll do more damage in the process.
I'm not arguing for the morality of it btw, just from a pure business standpoint I think it makes no sense.
Also from your previous post of saying the initial sales might make a diference, games using denuvo are almost exclusively big names that will make a profit regardless.

 

[Kazza]

I thought they arrested one the biggest crackers in Bulgaria? It doesn't seem to have had the intended deterrent effect.

 

[Kadayi]

(I do actually its pretty common where I live but I get your point). Going on from your analogy, I can keep my front door locked but if someone wants to come in and take my shit they will anyway and they'll do more damage in the process.

A lock is a deterrent, not a guarantee.

Also from your previous post of saying the initial sales might make a diference, games using denuvo are almost exclusively big names that will make a profit regardless.

You have next weeks Euro lottery numbers perchance?

 

[RedVIper]

You have next weeks Euro lottery numbers perchance?

I usually agree with most of what you post here, but I think you're being disingenuous if you're actually claiming that the sales from any big release are random.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I thought they arrested one the biggest crackers in Bulgaria? It doesn't seem to have had the intended deterrent effect.

He did next to nothing to hide his identity. So the response is "don't be careless and get caught", not "don't do it."

As far as the larger argument of DRM goes it works vs. the casual copier. Evidently that along with internal sales figures and usage data---don't forget that with many titles they can see exactly how many legit/non-legit copies they're supporting, and how much that costs in terms of infrastructure---is enough justification for most publishers to pay for DRM. Since they have more of what data there is and their job and livelihood relies upon the decisions they make with that data I'm going to be comfortable coming to the conclusion that they know more/better than most people screaming on forums about how DRM "doesn't work".

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

My entire point is that it either makes no difference or it has some long term benefit.

I'm not really certain you get to dictate the terms of its benefit and worth. This would be subjective and specific to each entity that opts to use DRM. I can't speak for those people.
I use the logic I've outlined above: the fact they use it is evidence they deem it beneficial.

I've also seen no evidence that it actually hurts sales, so if you want to show me that I'd be happy to read it.

Over many decades, those affected by piracy have explained how much. Whenever these are raised, they tend to be dismissed by those that are, curiously, sitting on the pro-piracy side of the argument.
In fact, these dismissals are so loud and commonplace that those currently affected by piracy have learned to do so meekly and to rebrand it as a 'service issue' or similar.
As if protecting your own property from those that would seek to acquire it by illegitimate means was some kind of offense to people (hence the 'do you lock your door' analogies).

I've seen no evidence of the claims of pirates of how their actions are a proven positive - apart from those who pirate making paper-thin arguments based on assumed entitlement.
Perhaps because piracy is classed as illegal, perhaps because pirates are not subject to shareholders and regulatory bodies, perhaps because they do things under made up names, perhaps that's why they don't provide their volume figures and costings. I look forward to that changing.
Given the lack of transparancy and lack of morality exhibited by pirates, I naturally find their unproven claims lend themselves to scrutiny - and that scrutiny, historically, always falls apart quite quickly.
I've already pointed out the hypocrisies of the common pro-piracy arguments.
Once pirates start to show the same degree of transparency and are beholden to the same ethical standards as those using DRM, I'll consider their side of the argument on equal terms.

Until then "Trust me, I'm a pirate" isn't reason enough to drop critical thinking.

 

[hariseldon]

I used to pirate games. These days games are so cheap that I don't need to (and my income is higher than it was back then which helps a bit). In an age of steam sales etc piracy is kinda unnecessary, thus DRM is pointless. GOG are showing the way, an ethical approach to gamers.

 

[Kadayi]

I usually agree with most of what you post here, but I think you're being disingenuous if you're actually claiming that the sales from any big release are random.

Please. I'm not being disingenuous ( I never said they were random, that's your interpretation) I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your statement. You're attempting to predict the future because for some reason you believe AAA developers can't fail. There's absolutely no guarantee that Hitman 2 will be a resounding success. As a fan of the series and the developer, I hope that it is, but I wouldn't bank on it, and I think any developer is within the rights to try and mitigate against avenues of loss. Whether it's effective or not is largely beside the point.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I used to pirate games. These days games are so cheap that I don't need to (and my income is higher than it was back then which helps a bit). In an age of steam sales etc piracy is kinda unnecessary, thus DRM is pointless. GOG are showing the way, an ethical approach to gamers.

A fair point.

Though in the case of GOG, they are doing the "Unlocked door" thing and being pirated to hell and back for it.
The fact that there is a website that is a practical clone of theirs in terms of content and appearance - minus the need to pay for anything - shows just how sincere these concerns of DRM are.

GOG remove the DRM. The piracy simply carries on just as it did before.

 

[vpance]

Sadly, I think games on the level of Hitman suffer the worst from pirating. As in the full priced, mid tier, low hype SP focused games.

 

[RedVIper]

Over many decades, those affected by piracy have explained how much. Whenever these are raised, they tend to be dismissed by those that are, curiously, sitting on the pro-piracy side of the argument.
In fact, these dismissals are so loud and commonplace that those currently affected by piracy have learned to do so meekly and to rebrand it as a 'service issue' or similar.
As if protecting your own property from those that would seek to acquire it by illegitimate means was some kind of offense to people (hence the 'do you lock your door' analogies).

I've seen no evidence of the claims of pirates of how their actions are a proven positive - apart from those who pirate making paper-thin arguments based on assumed entitlement.
Perhaps because piracy is classed as illegal, perhaps because pirates are not subject to shareholders and regulatory bodies, perhaps because they do things under made up names, perhaps that's why they don't provide their volume figures and costings. I look forward to that changing.
Given the lack of transparancy and lack of morality exhibited by pirates, I naturally find their unproven claims lend themselves to scrutiny - and that scrutiny, historically, always falls apart quite quickly.
I've already pointed out the hypocrisies of the common pro-piracy arguments.
Once pirates start to show the same degree of transparency and are beholden to the same ethical standards as those using DRM, I'll consider their side of the argument on equal terms.

Until then "Trust me, I'm a pirate" isn't reason enough to drop critical thinking.

Them claiming how much piracy hurts them isn't actually worth anything to me unless they provide some evidence for it, until then you claiming piracy is bad is worth as much as someone claiming piracy is good while providing no evidence.

"Once pirates start to show the same degree of transparency and are beholden to the same ethical standards as those using DRM, I'll consider their side of the argument on equal terms."

Yes gaming companies like EA and Ubisoft are the epitome of transparency and ethical standards, again I've already stated I could care less about the morality of the issue.

Please. I'm not being disingenuous ( I never said they were random, that's your interpretation) I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your statement. You're attempting to predict the future because for some reason you believe AAA developers can't fail. There's absolutely no guarantee that Hitman 2 will be a resounding success. As a fan of the series and the developer, I hope that it is, but I wouldn't bank on it, and I think any developer is within the rights to try and mitigate against avenues of loss. Whether it's effective or not is largely beside the point.

You compared it to lottery numbers, which are random, maybe it was a bad analogy but I think my interpretation of your statement was sound. I'm "predicting the future" based on past evidence, which is something companies do as well, they do have an idea how much their games will sell. It being effective or not is the entire point, if the money spent on DRM doesn't actually help sales in anyway, it seems like wasted money to me.

 

[hariseldon]

A fair point.

Though in the case of GOG, they are doing the "Unlocked door" thing and being pirated to hell and back for it.
The fact that there is a website that is a practical clone of theirs in terms of content and appearance - minus the need to pay for anything - shows just how sincere these concerns of DRM are.

GOG remove the DRM. The piracy simply carries on just as it did before.

Is that site a thing? I've not seen it as I'm a bit out of date on the world of warez these days tbh. That's a shitty thing. Still, on a positive note they still seem to be doing ok. Seriously though why bother pirating when these days you rarely need to spend more than £10 on a game if you're willing to wait for a sale? Eeesh.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Them claiming how much piracy hurts them isn't actually worth anything to me unless they provide some evidence for it, until then you claiming piracy is bad is worth as much as someone claiming piracy is good while providing no evidence.

Evidence has often been provided. And dismissed by anyone that doesn't like the idea of piracy being criticised.

All things being equal I'd agree with you.
But I'm not going to side with people that are blatantly immoral, unethical, and conducting illegal activities behind false names simply because I feel a personal gain from their actions.
By contrast, the ones being legal and transparent and who have historically provided substance to their claims are, by default, more likely to be telling the truth.

Please don't expect a company to show you their private financial data simply because you question their word over a pirate's. That's unrealistic.

I could care less about the morality of the issue.

Well, for an issue driven wholly by morality, that's a very convenient stance to take.
Demonising legitimate, law-abiding, investor-beholden entities at the same time really tells me how seriously you care about both sides of the argument.

Is that site a thing? I've not seen it as I'm a bit out of date on the world of warez these days tbh. That's a shitty thing. Still, on a positive note they still seem to be doing ok. Seriously though why bother pirating when these days you rarely need to spend more than £10 on a game if you're willing to wait for a sale? Eeesh.

Because piracy has never been about what the pro-pirates claim it to be about.
It's never been about wanting a demo.
It's never been about objecting to high prices.
It's never been about teaching big companies a lesson.
It's never been about distaste for DRM.

All those points can be made without the illegitimate acquisition of commercial goods.

Piracy is about greed.

 

[Kadayi]

Them claiming how much piracy hurts them isn't actually worth anything to me unless they provide some evidence for it, until then you claiming piracy is bad is worth as much as someone claiming piracy is good while providing no evidence.

As it's their business I dare say they have a far better understanding regarding the pros and cons of the issue than you'll ever have so mayhap let's leave it to them. I'm entirely sure why you require them to demonstrate a loss though. A cursory visit to any piracy site will show seeders and leechers for most things. Don't like, don't buy. It's real simple.

You compared it to lottery numbers, which are random, maybe it was a bad analogy but I think my interpretation of your statement was sound. I'm "predicting the future" based on past evidence, which is something companies do as well, they do have an idea how much their games will sell. It being effective or not is the entire point, if the money spent on DRM doesn't actually help sales in anyway, it seems like wasted money to me.

Tell that to Square-Enix and the shadow of the Tomb Raider team.

 

[Luffytubby]

im gonna get this game for sure. Hitman is AMAZING.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

I bet everyone in this thread never sweeps lanes while making a turn in their vehicle.

 

[Clear]

Them claiming how much piracy hurts them isn't actually worth anything to me unless they provide some evidence for it, until then you claiming piracy is bad is worth as much as someone claiming piracy is good while providing no evidence.

When your livelihood depends on selling stuff, every sale counts. Seeing your product being made available for free in unlimited quantities is not something you want to see, ever.

The "open door" analogy is stupid too, If releasing a game without DRM is equivalent to not locking your doors and windows and trusting in the community, then piracy is handwaving off somebody handing out skeleton keys and burglary tools that make security concerns moot.

Seriously. If you think piracy doesn't matter please post your bank details and pin number publically! See how many people transfer money into your account compared to those who rob you blind!

 

[hariseldon]

Because piracy has never been about what the pro-pirates claim it to be about.
It's never been about wanting a demo.
It's never been about objecting to high prices.
It's never been about teaching big companies a lesson.
It's never been about distaste for DRM.

It's about greed.

True but it makes me sad I intend to buy the game as honestly I'm a big fan of their work, and I just hope that enough people buy it to ensure that all the hard-working people involved can be justly rewarded for their effort and skill. I honestly believe that if we want to see more of something, one of the best ways to make that statement is to buy that thing.

 

[Shmunter]

That’s open platforms. You win some, you lose some. If you still bother releasing on PC, then it still must be worth it.

 

[hariseldon]

Fuck me they've not exactly made it simple have they. No fucking idea what you get for each fucking edition.

EDIT: I'm a fucking idiot. Ignore me.

 

[RedVIper]

Tell that to Square-Enix and the shadow of the Tomb Raider team.

Do we actually have any numbers? I tried to search it but all I found was that physical sales were down, which isn't very usefull information.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

When your livelihood depends on selling stuff, every sale counts. Seeing your product being made available for free in unlimited quantities is not something you want to see, ever.

The "open door" analogy is stupid too, If releasing a game without DRM is equivalent to not locking your doors and windows and trusting in the community, then piracy is handwaving off somebody handing out skeleton keys and burglary tools that make security concerns moot.

Seriously. If you think piracy doesn't matter please post your bank details and pin number publically! See how many people transfer money into your account compared to those who rob you blind!

There's an issue with your challenge here; the companies themselves don't post their own bank account information and only reports.

"See how many people transfer money into your account compared to those who rob you blind!" is something you should take on the flip too; are companies run by people completely immune to the moral corruption you're pointing to? Wouldn't a business then be predacted on the efficiency of doing that act?

 

[RedVIper]

Seriously. If you think piracy doesn't matter please post your bank details and pin number publically! See how many people transfer money into your account compared to those who rob you blind!

There's a big difference between stealing and piracy, if i steal your car, you're now out of a car, if I pirate your game you still have the game and you can sell it to other people. It's a very different concept and if you can't see the diference I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Javthusiast]

I used to pirate a lot. Now I buy all my games legally, because a lot of sales and EASE OF USE through various services like steam, gog and psn. Why the hell would I go through the hassle of torrent searching etc. That's all they needed to do, same with services like Netlix, amazon prime and spotify.

Having stupid protections that only cause problems for people who buy these games is dumb.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

There's a big difference between stealing and piracy, if i steal your car, you're now out of a car, if I pirate your game you still have the game and you can sell it to other people. It's a very different concept and if you can't see the diference I don't know what to tell you.

Copy+paste pro piracy argument #8.

Which is why I refer to the act as 'illegitimate acquisition of another's goods'.
Because the pro-pirates will derail the more significant ethical point, by acting like taking something that doesn't belong to you is a-ok as long as it's not tangible.

You can't argue morals if you're already morally bankrupt.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

With people so against piracy as a moral standpoint, how do you feel about small businesses using free versions/unlicensed copies of software instead of paying for the licensing?

If you found the company you worked for was incorrectly using the licensing for a software, would you report the company you work for to the provider with the evidence, or immediately leave your job based on the moral implications?

An issue with 3rd party DRM is that they tend to follow a structure, leading to attack vectors being more consistent within their releases; if companies took DRM into their own hands and more seriously (As they tend to say it attacks sales) why not develop their own framework for a diversified solution?

With all this talk about cracking and moral implications, wouldn't the main point for DRM be the protection it provides the company/investors so that they can continue to provide products to the consumer, protecting the consumer's interests in the grand scheme?

I don't believe major companies like NetApp and SolarWinds are hopping onto the Denuvo train stating it makes their products more DRM secure and help procure sales. Why go to the 3rd party and not develop in house if it's such a major concern?

If other companies have proven they can develop more secure DRM in house, then why do gaming companies turn to Denuvo, a known crackable company, to secure their products?

The age old adage of "You have to spend money to make money," comes to mind.

And a completely biased question; why can't Denuvo source outside research and post that on their website versus their own studies? Duh a company is going to market "The point of our product is successful!" but is it actually successful?

 

[Clear]

There's a big difference between stealing and piracy, if i steal your car, you're now out of a car, if I pirate your game you still have the game and you can sell it to other people. It's a very different concept and if you can't see the diference I don't know what to tell you.

No its an issue of TRUST.

When I used that analogy it was to illustrate the fallacy of the "open door" argument. Would you expose yourself like that willingly? Sure, you could do it as psycho-sociological experiment safely using a pre-paid card and a false identity. That way you could limit your losses, (say the net return a dev gets for a single sale of their game,) and still be open to unlimited gains.

I mean, the pro-piracy argument is that somebody who took the funds could subsequently pay it back with interest because taking that money saved their life in a tight squeeze and they are so gosh-darn grateful about that! Or a friend of the person you helped saw your generosity and decided to "pay it forward"

Sure, it COULD happen, but how TRUSTING would you be that it'd turn out that way? Be honest, you wouldn't. Because its bullshit! We all know on balance some unscrupulous stranger is equally liable to just take the free cash, and forget about it.

Now lets look at it from a real piracy standpoint: This scenario I just described is coming up an unlimited number of times (no supply limitations with warez, no sir), and the best part is you didn't even make the choice to do this "experiment".

So, hand-on-heart how happy would you be about it, and how trusting would you be that this is all perfectly harmless?

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Piracy is the problem, not DRM.
If you're arguing the DRM is the issue, you're not interested in addressing the root cause and, as I've pointed out before, are justifying DRM.
Solve the piracy problem and you'll solve the the DRM 'problem' along with it.

This is one of the reasons why Games as a Service and game streaming are inevitable.

 

[RedVIper]

Copy+paste pro piracy argument #8.

Which is why I refer to the act as 'illegitimate acquisition of another's goods'.
Because the pro-pirates will derail the more significant ethical point, by acting like taking something that doesn't belong to you is a-ok as long as it's not tangible.

You can't argue morals if you're already morally bankrupt.

1. I wasn't awnsering to you, someone asked me if i would be ok with getting my bank account robbed and I was explaining the diference.
2.It isn't even a pro-piracy argument, its a shitty anti piracy argument when you claim that pirating a game is the same as robbing someones back account.
3.I didn't insult you so claiming "I'm morally backrupt" because I could give a shit about the morality of piracy is kinda disrespectful.

Piracy is the problem, not DRM.
If you're arguing the DRM is the issue, you're not interested in addressing the root cause and, as I've pointed out before, are justifying DRM.
Solve the piracy problem and you'll solve the the DRM 'problem' along with it.

This is one of the reasons why Games as a Service and game streaming are inevitable.

Yes companies like EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar have no choice but implement DRM, monotize their game up the ass, charge 60 dollarfor a game and still include microtransactions, pirates are the reason Games as a service exists, it has nothing to do with corporate greed, it's those dam pirates that are leading these multi billion dollar companies to try to squeeze as much money as they can from their costumers.

 

[Agent_Carnage]

Piracy is the problem, not DRM.
If you're arguing the DRM is the issue, you're not interested in addressing the root cause and, as I've pointed out before, are justifying DRM.
Solve the piracy problem and you'll solve the the DRM 'problem' along with it.

This is one of the reasons why Games as a Service and game streaming are inevitable.

Game streaming is never going to happen unless they really fix up the latency issues. Services like Onlive was a novel concept but I lost some money as I bought games on there and when it shut down so did the games.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

Piracy is the problem, not DRM.
If you're arguing the DRM is the issue, you're not interested in addressing the root cause and, as I've pointed out before, are justifying DRM.
Solve the piracy problem and you'll solve the the DRM 'problem' along with it.

This is one of the reasons why Games as a Service and game streaming are inevitable.

I think your name kind of wraps up this whole thing.

You have me hooked though, if it's not the moral argument, what is the root issue? If piracy, can you expand on what the root issue of piracy is in this discussion?

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

If piracy, can you expand on what the root issue of piracy is in this discussion?

No need to expand. That's what the pro-piracy argument is about. Noise. Distraction. Obfuscation. Making it sound complex.
It's not complex at all. It's not a broad topic. It's very very narrow and simple:

Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

Oh, it's supported by a host of thinly veiled excuses to make greed seem like something else. To make the greedy out as victims. But strip away the victim-play, it's just greed.
As we've already seen in this thread, a sympathy-for-the-pirate argument has been presented that claims not to care about morals, but demonises the legitimate victims of piracy in the very next breath. This is how quickly these arguments falter and unravel.
None of these excuses stand up to any scrutiny nor provide a justification for acquisition of goods by illegitimate means.

The solution will be when the zeros and ones of the game are kept out of the hands of the people that would pirate them.
Hence the inevitability game streaming and Games as a Service.
Both are already well established and any doubters should look at the recent Superdata report which shows a 52% revenue share attributed to a game-streaming service.

 

[hariseldon]

Piracy is the problem, not DRM.

If you're arguing the DRM is the issue, you're not interested in addressing the root cause and, as I've pointed out before, are justifying DRM.

Solve the piracy problem and you'll solve the the DRM 'problem' along with it.

This is one of the reasons why Games as a Service and game streaming are inevitable.

One of the problems I have with DRM, which I think others have alluded to, is the idea that someone else can turn off your access to the game you bought, and that applies doubly in games as a service and streaming. This has proven a problem in the world of streaming music where in fact it is impossible to maintain a proper collection of music, where things will disappear from your library at a whim - I got so pissed off with that and not being able to have my more obscure bits and live sessions due to amazon killing their cloud locker that I moved all my music to a plex server running on a raspi.

The other problem with this is preservation. We can go and play games from the early 80s reasonably easily now thanks to a range of emulators. That's a wonderful thing. I love being able to experience gaming history, understand how gaming has progressed over the decades, experience the evolution of Mario games for instance, or compare Mario vs Sonic to see two different approaches to platforming, etc. Further, old PC games can generally be played one way or another, via DOSBox, ScummVM, etc. Without the warez scene providing cracks we won't be able to do that. If I go back to the 90s, the Atari ST's catalogue of games is primarily playable today thanks to the work of the pirate groups (ironically the magazines at the time would devote energy to expressing their disgust for the pirating groups while praising work on the demo scene, seemingly unaware that they were the exact same groups - games journalism had its issues even then).

A brief aside on RedVIper 's point about excessive monetization etc - tbh some of it is undoubtedly greed, as with all things in capitalism, especially when big business strengthens its hand vs the consumer (and DRM and streaming definitely achieve those goals). However, part of this is caused by us, the consumers. I used to pay £25 for an Atari ST game back in 1990, PC games were typically £30. Then it went up to £30 for Atari ST versions of bigger games and £35 on PC, for the likes of Midwinter 2, F-19 Stealth Fighter, etc. Today, most games still cost around £30, and let's be honest, most of us buy them cheap in sales.

So that creates an income gap. Yes the market is bigger, more people buying the game, and duplication costs are now effectively zero without the big box, manual and disks to consider, plus the shop's cut, distribution to shops around the world, etc. However, the cost of making a game has skyrocketed due to our expectations of fidelity. I'm not sure how well they match up but it's perfectly possible that games aren't profitable without microtransactions, DLC etc.

In much the same way that people's desire not to pay for music has led us down a path of fucking mp3s and their nasty audio quality, streaming services that are missing half your fucking content, siloed walled-gardens so you can't mix and match collections between different providers to make up for that deficiency even at the cost of spending more, etc, perhaps gamers desire to not pay for things, or to get them cheap (yeah I'm one of the cheap-asses - this is in part my fault) have led us down a path where streaming becomes an inevitability with all the shitness that goes with it.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

1. I wasn't awnsering to you, someone asked me if i would be ok with getting my bank account robbed and I was explaining the diference.
2.It isn't even a pro-piracy argument, its a shitty anti piracy argument when you claim that pirating a game is the same as robbing someones back account.
3.I didn't insult you so claiming "I'm morally backrupt" because I could give a shit about the morality of piracy is kinda disrespectful.

1) This is an open discussion.
2) If you're against anti-piracy, then you're implicitly or explicitly pro-piracy. I explained this in my very first comment.
Your arguments have shown you to be very sympathetic to the pirate's side of the argument - demanding no evidence or substance, yet critical of the genuine victims who you refuse to accept any harm is being done to unless they show you their private financial data.
3) If you make morally unsound arguments, support immoral and unethical practices, and endorse those committing illegal activities I will regard you as morally bankrupt.

You are as entitled to my respect as much as a pirate is of a videogame they refuse to pay for.
I hope you appreciate the irony of your complaint given the context of your argument.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

No need to expand. That's what the pro-piracy argument is about. Noise. Distraction. Obfuscation. Making it sound complex.
It's not complex at all. It's not a broad topic. It's very very narrow and simple:

Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

Oh, it's supported by a host of thinly veiled excuses to make greed seem like something else. To make the greedy out as victims. But strip away the victim-play, it's just greed.
As we've already seen in this thread, a sympathy-for-the-pirate argument has been presented that claims not to care about morals, but demonises the legitimate victims of piracy in the very next breath. This is how quickly these arguments falter and unravel.
None of these excuses stand up to any scrutiny nor provide a justification for acquisition of goods by illegitimate means.

The solution will be when the zeros and ones of the game are kept out of the hands of the people that would pirate them.
Hence the inevitability game streaming and Games as a Service.
Both are already well established and any doubters should look at the recent Superdata report which shows a 52% revenue share attributed to a game-streaming service.

There is reason to expand; to be honest I feel you are quite charged about the issue and feel you jump a lot in your thought process. It find it hard to keep track of what exactly you're trying to make a point of. Sorry for an inconveince with asking for clarification, just trying to make sure I understand you

Okay awesome, piracy is greed, that's your root issue.

There is a solution to that, eliminate greed.

I think that's why you jumped to your next step of "Keep the data out of pirates hands."

From my perspective, it seems odd you would go on about "Noise, distraction," etc and a root cause of greed. Aren't companies started on the ideal of greed? If entertainment companies really were out to do it for just entertainment stakes, why add DRM?

I'm in no means defending pirates and their BS arguments; I pirate and it's because why the hell am I going to be on some moral high horse when a company is going to abuse the system they want me to be complacent in? If a company can save a buck doing what they do, you bet your ass I'm going to save a buck doing what I do. Morals are perspective and society based, so fuck 'em.