• gila@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    332
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait, but they already launched it without Denuvo. So pirates can easily crack the launch version without it, and only paying customers need to deal with the antipiracy bullshit? Nice, they took a pro-piracy hyperbole and made it actually real.

    • Veraxus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      238
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      DRM ONLY ever affects paying customers, ergo DRM is always unethical malware.

      Also, let’s never forget how Ghostwire Tokyo had Denuvo patched IN over a year after release.

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh, I only meant hyperbole in terms of antipiracy affecting the pirates that had to figure out how to crack it. As a broad gesture at the fact piracy (consumption) depends on piracy (effort) to work

    • Julian@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m thinking this too… like what’s even the point of using denuvo if it’s not applied day one? The whole point is to delay piracy so they sell more copies during launch week (in theory), so waiting until after day one completely ruins that since you can just pirate the easily cracked launch version.

        • Derproid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t this make it easier to crack the denuvo as well though? Since now you have a list of changes to look at for where denuvo is implemented.

          • kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I mean, decompiling an obfuscated binary down to each individual CPU instruction is pretty nuts to compare two separate releases, even at that level, denuvo can be injected into game assets everywhere, so it gets hard to tell what’s an actual patch and what’s denuvo. I’m guessing it’s sort of on purpose, by combining legitimate updates with denuvo, it’s harder to tell what’s denuvo. If denuvo was included in version 1, it would be easier to tell what was a legit update in the patch, and rule out those pieces of the install being denuvo. But that’s all sort of the whole point of denuvo is that it’s all over the codebase, all over the binaries, the assets, the libraries. It’s hard to nail down every spot it exists

        • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If non DRM version is given to reviewers, it will leak to crackers, unless you control 100% of reviewers you give a copy. This does not make any sense.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reviewers get games prior to release day. So it may not be so likely that you can get a working game without the day 1 patch.