Denuvo has been cracked

[Starbird]

I see this posted a lot, and it's true that there is not a 1:1 relationship between pirated copies of X, and lost sales of X. However, "pro piracy" or at the very least "rabidly anti-DRM" advocates have taken it to mean there is a 1:0 relationship between piracy and lost sales, and that is a hilarious mountain of bullshit.

Plenty of people who pirate would've bought otherwise. There's absolutely no way to ascertain exactly how many, but "plenty" seems an appropriately rough estimate.

You can argue whether or not the correct reaction to piracy is "more draconian DRM" or "more consumer friendly policies", that's a good argument. But don't argue that piracy isn't a money loser for the various industries that get pirated. That's ridiculously off base.

Lets flip your argument

What about sales which were made because someone liked a game so much after pirating it that they bought a legit copy.
Or positive PR if your game is good and a lot of people have an opportunity to play it.
Or kids/teens being able to play your game because of pirating and later on growing into Adults with a hobby on which they are happy to spend money on.

Fact of the matter is companies only look at Piracy one way, and usually it's companies that have a tendancy to put out broken games who have the worst policies against pirating. Because they actually sell via hype and have a front loaded business model which will end up biting them in the butt long term.

While not admitting to anything, the only reasons I would pirate a game is...
- It is not easy to obtain where I live.
- It is ludicrously overpriced where I live.
- It has some sort of obnoxious DRM mechanic (limited activations, always online etc) that make me not want to play it.
- I am not sure if I want the game but have no way of testing it first.

 

[Vigormortis]

Thanks for the further in-depth explanation and the links.
It should help clear up any misunderstandings.

Just on other thing if you know.
If I bought my game in a brick-and-mortar store, would I still need to download the game?

Depends, honestly.

Steam activation, barring any other DRM, is nothing more than downloading or verifying a unique .exe file for your game.

In some cases, some of the game files will still need to be downloaded. This is usually because the files either didn't fit on the disk, or they are files that the developer was planning to update after release. (or they're part of some anti-piracy measure)

The activation itself is nothing more than your account having the title added to it's list and then Steam providing a unique .exe file. Once you have that file, or once it's verified, you can create back-ups of the game's files, including that .exe, and play or reinstall without having to go online ever again.

It's pretty much the equivalent of CD keys from years prior.

Not confrontational at all, just unable to fathom such a perplexing mindset. ,)

When buying in a store, I am well aware that I'm buying the disk itself and only the disk (and it's contents).
That said, I do expect it work out of the disk or I will be returning it as faulty goods.
If it does work, I assume that the CD/DVD will hold for about 20 years given moderate use. A very acceptable time frame.
When that time-frame has passed (or the disk becomes too damaged) I can always resort to back-up ISO's if I'm still inclined to play it. Or buy a GOTY/Complete edition with released updates and expansions.
Nowhere in that period would the store who sold it to me attempt to alter my game without my consent, nor having them brake into my house and uninstall my game and take my CD/DVD.

To be fair:
* Digital copies have no discernible expiration date.

* Steam can't uninstall your games on it's own, and Valve has no right to "take away" the files you legally purchased. Their only action is denial of access to the Steam servers. Something that isn't an issue to the end-user, provided the end-user took the responsibility of storing the game files or the game's back-up locally. The equivalent of keeping a physical copy of the game.

* GOTY and replacement copies are easier to acquire with digital copies.

* Automatic updates can be disabled with most titles, allowing the end-user to play the game as it was upon release. And, with some titles (or with proper storage of back-ups) it's possible to rollback to an earlier build of a game that was updated.

I can understand the frustration with having to download many files when trying to install from a disk, but in most cases that's on the developer, not Steam. The only thing Steam does, in terms of activation, is provide the unique executable file.

It comes down to individual control really. I want control over what I've bought.
To accept even Online Activation would lose that control and transfer it to another entity.
"We" accepted handbook passwords (irritating as they were).
"We" accepted CD-Keys (The perfect solution IMO)
"We" accepted Online Activation (Grudgingly at first, until steam)
"We" Did not accept Install Limits (I hope we haven't)
"We" are beginning to accept Always Online.

You may be surprised at this, but I agree. Thing is, in many ways, Steam is more like CD keys than it is the other, latter options. Again, barring extraneous DRM, Steam's only purpose in activation is providing a unique executable. Once a user has this executable, they can freely play their game offline, on any computer. (provided, of course, those other computers are cleared for use by the end-user, should the user have Steam Guard in place)

So while it's a larger hurdle to jump over with that first install, after that point it actually becomes easier than using a CD key.

And no, I flatly refuse to accept install limits and Always Online DRM, with the latter only "acceptable" for a very, very small niche of multiplayer-only titles. (and even then, it'd better damn well be only for online hosting of the game servers) Beyond that, it can fuck right off.

I may be called paranoid, but to me this is a clear move towards more and more store/publisher control that will in the end turn it into rentals. Per hour probably.
And that thought is horrifying to me.

I wouldn't call it complete paranoia. There's some precedent to your scenario.

And while some publishers, and perhaps even the console makers, would like to see such a scenario become reality, Valve and others like them have spoken out against such a future scenario. They likely hate the idea as much as you do. They and devs like CD Projekt would rather give full control over their respective platforms to the community. (something they've both been slowly working towards in recent years)

This is not to say they can't change their minds, but as for now they've been trying to move towards a industry future which is the opposite of your scenario.

We can at least agree that all other form of DRM (Rootkits, starforce, etc ) is bad I hope.

Absolutely. And more over, unstable, useless anti-cheat systems like Punkbuster can all go fuck themselves and the people who coded them.

 

[Vigormortis]

What I find far worse is that they can (and do) remove games from your library for completely arbitrary or thinly veiled bullshit reasons and you can't do jackshit against it. The games YOU bought with YOUR hard earned money. And then they wonder why some people pirate.

Indeed, I could not agree more. Such practices are practically screaming of bad faith and are driving people away.
As I mention in my post above, it's a form of control-shift from player to publisher/platform. People will do what it takes to maintain control over what they've bought.

Or, at least they should. This is the part where I blame consumers for letting companies get away with it.
If you buy a game you support the practices with which the game is produced, published, sold and maintained.
I can proudly say that I have not bought a single game requiring Online Activation (or worse).
I wonder how many others against Online Activation can say the same..

Again, not directed at me, but if I may:

The only instances wherein a game was pulled from users libraries was when the game files themselves either were a danger to the user's system (for whatever reason) or because of some legality issue wherein it was illegal for the end-user to display ownership of a copy of the game. As far as I'm aware, this has happened only twice.

Now, granted, twice is far more than it should be. But, in the interest of protecting user systems or protecting users from facing legal issues, I can understand the decision. I don't know that I'm entirely comfortable with it, but I understand it.

That said, anyone who'd bought the game and downloaded them could still play them on their system. Provided, of course, the games even worked in the first place.

 

[Vigormortis]

I think this has been the case for awhile. The only difference is Valve has made it an official feature rather than just something that happens when you unplug your internet for a minute while launching Steam. Before it was made official, Steam did have that annoying bullshit where if you didn't go into Offline mode while online, then it wouldn't let you start in offline mode later when you were actually offline. However, the work around, as I quickly found out, was to physically remove your internet connection before launching the program(you could resume internet connectivity after with no issues). Steam would detect that you had no internet and would simply launch the library in offline mode. I don't know if this worked if you used wireless internet since I always use a hardline, but the work around of removing the CAT5 cord was simple if retarded. As for the pinging back to home every once in awhile, I used this for a several months straight in 2012 when I had internet, but it was so shitty that I couldn't connect to Steam online with it.

Well, the original intent for Offline Mode was always for it to be an indefinite option. The issue was, the system with which they used to store client credentials locally (centered around the infamous .blob file) was incredibly buggy. This often lead to many having trouble with Offline Mode. And then, almost two years ago, a new bug had cropped up that was causing some systems to lose the client credentials after only two weeks, requiring the client to be logged into the Steam servers to reacquire the credentials.

As of late last year, Valve phased out the old system and have replaced it with a system that works with incredibe consistency. Provided one has Steam set to remember a user's password (i.e. client credentials) locally, they can go into Offline Mode at any point. Whether they're already online, just lost connection, or booting Steam for the first time, it (should) go directly into Offline Mode.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Super-Snipped!

First off I'd like to thank you for your very thorough responses.

We seem to agree on a lot of things regarding Anti-Consumer practices and in the end we basically want the same thing;
To play games with the least amount of hassle. ,)

Were we disagree is on Online Activation.
I think you see it as a necessary evil that can be lived with, but would hope for it to go away in the end.
Am I far off the mark in saying that?

Whereas I give no quarter in releasing control to another entity besides myself. ^^
I can't trust that corporations don't change or have our best intentions at heart.

I do see a rise in platforms like GOG or companies like CDProjekt Red and that gives me hope for the future.

I'd like to thank you again for humoring me and being a good sport about it.

 

[Kathinka]

What I find far worse is that they can (and do) remove games from your library for completely arbitrary or thinly veiled bullshit reasons and you can't do jackshit against it. The games YOU bought with YOUR hard earned money. And then they wonder why some people pirate.

Indeed, I could not agree more. Such practices are practically screaming of bad faith and are driving people away.
As I mention in my post above, it's a form of control-shift from player to publisher/platform. People will do what it takes to maintain control over what they've bought.

Or, at least they should. This is the part where I blame consumers for letting companies get away with it.
If you buy a game you support the practices with which the game is produced, published, sold and maintained.
I can proudly say that I have not bought a single game requiring Online Activation (or worse).
I wonder how many others against Online Activation can say the same..

Again, not directed at me, but if I may:

The only instances wherein a game was pulled from users libraries was when the game files themselves either were a danger to the user's system (for whatever reason) or because of some legality issue wherein it was illegal for the end-user to display ownership of a copy of the game. As far as I'm aware, this has happened only twice.

Now, granted, twice is far more than it should be. But, in the interest of protecting user systems or protecting users from facing legal issues, I can understand the decision. I don't know that I'm entirely comfortable with it, but I understand it.

That said, anyone who'd bought the game and downloaded them could still play them on their system. Provided, of course, the games even worked in the first place.

It has happened to me allone four times, twice to a friend of mine.
We travel a lot, so we thought: Hey, this game is cheap here in Poland, let's buy it! After a few months back home the games were pulled (not blocked, we could have fixed that in 30 seconds with a proxy) but straight up pulled from our libraries. No legal problems of any sort, just plain old greed. What businesses is it of theirs where I buy my games with my hard earned money..

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Snipped in relation to Steam & DRM

Steam's DRM stuff is very easily cracked from what I know. It's practically useless in keeping pirates out of games, so this is one of the few cases where the software used enhances the experience.

Valve know that they can't stop pirates from pirating games, so instead they offer a better service: achievements, steam trading cards, a marketplace, sales, community hubs, integrated mod support...the 'DRM' is there to keep this stuff functioning online and so that you can use it on any computer that has Steam installed.

The DRM is a by-product and not the forefront of steam, ergo why it isn't as intrusive or generally as horrible as Uplay.

On the subject of Denuvo...yay!

I await the day where devs and pubs join CDProjektRed and Valve in realising that you can't fight piracy with DRM, and that instead you need to provide a superior service.

At this point, investing in DRM is approaching money laundering in terms of suspiciously wasted resources.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Well, considering how much time it has allowed for the games to be up for sale without the... er... "competition"? I would say that it's debatable whether the DRM "worked" or not. I don't really think most publishers are actually so naive as to believe that their DRM will forever prevent pirated copies.

Except for Blizzard. GG, Battle.net.

That having been said, I've already got multiple forms of DRM on my laptop, including Origin and Steam. I realize how easy they are to circumvent, but I refuse to purchase games that shove an extra layer into my face on top of that. Sorry, Dragon Age, as much as I want you it's not as much as I want to avoid bogging down my system with useless extra software that's probably only going to end up causing problems for me.

I've always found it funny how people against DRM defend steam. Without realising it has been DRM before DRM was even DRM.

Kinda like how that last line is stupid given how DRM was around before Steam? And I think most people don't hate Steam because it's offers enough to not be a hassle.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I count Steam as DRM. A lot of games won't let you play unless you load up Steam first. Even it's (laughably) "offline" mode first requires you to sign in. A few years back, Sony had a neat idea for DRM that they used, it was a rootkit virus. That worked out well.

Not anymore, though. In fact, that hasn't been true for about a year now.

Valve patched in an entirely new Offline Mode and replaced the old system for storing local client data. Now you can boot Steam into Offline Mode without having to go online first. You can even keep it in Offline Mode indefinitely, if you so choose.

Yup, tis true since thats how i use steam all the time since i lost my home internet connection...only a few games don't like it and wont work

 

[Something Amyss]

Steam's DRM stuff is very easily cracked from what I know. It's practically useless in keeping pirates out of games, so this is one of the few cases where the software used enhances the experience.

They're putting something between me and my games, something a pirate doesn't have to deal with, and that's an "enhancement?"

NO.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Steam's DRM stuff is very easily cracked from what I know. It's practically useless in keeping pirates out of games, so this is one of the few cases where the software used enhances the experience.

They're putting something between me and my games, something a pirate doesn't have to deal with, and that's an "enhancement?"

NO.

Uplay is worse in my opinion. The point I was making that the DRM isn't the 'point' of what Steam is.

Steam is a unified distribution service first, drm second. Cloud saves and everything else that requires an online connection that I mentioned wouldn't be able to function as well through a different format.

Also I never said that I am pro-DRM dude, chill.

I mean, for christ's sake, I pre-ordered The Witcher 3 through GOG.com instead of Steam since I think that version is superior. I was just saying that DRM is more of a noxious by-product of Steam, but it isn't the main 'feature' of the platform.

 

[Vigormortis]

It has happened to me allone four times, twice to a friend of mine.
We travel a lot, so we thought: Hey, this game is cheap here in Poland, let's buy it! After a few months back home the games were pulled (not blocked, we could have fixed that in 30 seconds with a proxy) but straight up pulled from our libraries. No legal problems of any sort, just plain old greed. What businesses is it of theirs where I buy my games with my hard earned money..

Ah, okay. I see what happened.

This seems like an issue with the developers of the games region locking the titles. And, in the strictest sense, it does boil down to a legal issue. (of ownership)

To be honest, I really don't understand why devs still region lock titles. I can appreciate part of the idea, insofar as wanting to have more control over when and where their product is sold, but I really disagree with the practice. Especially when it's at the expense of the end-user.

So in this regard, I'm on your side.

That said, sometimes there are options for users like you and your friends. It might take some doing, but I have seen cases wherein people were able to 'transfer' the games to a different region. I haven't had to go through the process my self, so I probably won't be of much help, unfortunately.

Still, I sympathize with your plight.

 

[Kathinka]

It has happened to me allone four times, twice to a friend of mine.
We travel a lot, so we thought: Hey, this game is cheap here in Poland, let's buy it! After a few months back home the games were pulled (not blocked, we could have fixed that in 30 seconds with a proxy) but straight up pulled from our libraries. No legal problems of any sort, just plain old greed. What businesses is it of theirs where I buy my games with my hard earned money..

Ah, okay. I see what happened.

This seems like an issue with the developers of the games region locking the titles. And, in the strictest sense, it does boil down to a legal issue. (of ownership)

To be honest, I really don't understand why devs still region lock titles. I can appreciate part of the idea, insofar as wanting to have more control over when and where their product is sold, but I really disagree with the practice. Especially when it's at the expense of the end-user.

So in this regard, I'm on your side.

That said, sometimes there are options for users like you and your friends. It might take some doing, but I have seen cases wherein people were able to 'transfer' the games to a different region. I haven't had to go through the process my self, so I probably won't be of much help, unfortunately.

Still, I sympathize with your plight.

It wasn't really a huge problem because to get these games there are...other ways. And apparently they want you to go down that road. Just the implications of that they can do that is something that really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Vigormortis]

First off I'd like to thank you for your very thorough responses.

We seem to agree on a lot of things regarding Anti-Consumer practices and in the end we basically want the same thing;
To play games with the least amount of hassle. ,)

And thank you for yours. It's rare to have a civil 'debate', as it were, in these forums.

Were we disagree is on Online Activation.
I think you see it as a necessary evil that can be lived with, but would hope for it to go away in the end.
Am I far off the mark in saying that?

Provided such an outcome wouldn't come at the expense of the benefits of a system like Steam, yes. Absolutely.

Though, online activation has even less of a sting, in my case, because I tend to buy many of my games digitally. So, in the end, I'm downloading the game anyway.

Whereas I give no quarter in releasing control to another entity besides myself. ^^

Well, outside of the community, market, and workshop features I only view Steam as a store. As such, once I've downloaded the files, they're mine. Valve has no control over what I do with them. And I would staunchly fight any legislation that tried to take that right away from me.

So I think, in a lot of ways, we share that same ideal; if not the same approach.

I can't trust that corporations don't change or have our best intentions at heart.

Nor should you. Corporations are run by people. People are fallible. And never trust something that's fallible any more than you have to.

I do see a rise in platforms like GOG or companies like CDProjekt Red and that gives me hope for the future.

As it does for me as well. And honestly, I would prefer an industry wherein we get systems like GOG and Steam existing in tandem, not just tangentially. An industry where we have all of the consumer freedoms we get through the GOG storefront, with the added bonus of the feature-rich environment of a platform like Steam.

That's probably a bit too idealistic for the real world, but it's what I hope for.

I'd like to thank you again for humoring me and being a good sport about it.

The same to you.

 

[Vigormortis]

It wasn't really a huge problem because to get these games there are...other ways. And apparently they want you to go down that road. Just the implications of that they can do that is something that really rubs me the wrong way.

I agree. It is a dangerous precedent.

Sadly, it boils down to the legislation in regards to the sale of software (and related ownership) and copyrighting laws. Both of which are woefully inadequate for today's software environment and are in desperate need of updating.

Still, glad you found, um...."work-arounds".

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

To be honest, I really don't understand why devs still region lock titles.

Usually happens for two reasons - to stop people taking advantage of regional price differences or because of legal issues involving content.

 

[Vigormortis]

To be honest, I really don't understand why devs still region lock titles.

Usually happens for two reasons - to stop people taking advantage of regional price differences or because of legal issues involving content.

Well yes, insofar as the store fronts are concerned. I was more referring to region locking the games to accounts that log in from specific regions.

As far as I'm concerned, if I buy a game from a digital store front while I'm in, say, the UK, then the game should still function when I move back to the US.

 

[Loonyyy]

Piracy =/= lost sale.

I see this posted a lot, and it's true that there is not a 1:1 relationship between pirated copies of X, and lost sales of X. However, "pro piracy" or at the very least "rabidly anti-DRM" advocates have taken it to mean there is a 1:0 relationship between piracy and lost sales, and that is a hilarious mountain of bullshit.

Plenty of people who pirate would've bought otherwise. There's absolutely no way to ascertain exactly how many, but "plenty" seems an appropriately rough estimate.

You can argue whether or not the correct reaction to piracy is "more draconian DRM" or "more consumer friendly policies", that's a good argument. But don't argue that piracy isn't a money loser for the various industries that get pirated. That's ridiculously off base.

Shamus Young had a column about this which was really interesting. He started from the position of assuming for sake of argument that the 90% piracy rate on PC cited by some publishers was true, and made a few points. Like for instance: If you can convert just 1 out of every 9 pirates, you've increased your sales by 100%.

 

[amythyr]

I think if a game is good,and reasonably priced people will buy it.
And i also think DRM shouldn't be there or if there is a drm,then being online shouldn't be required.
To impose the buying of games,it should be that you need to verify key before and after updating or joining a multiplayer game or installing mods.
I myself have hundreds of game in steam (vive la steam sales) and lot of games in gog too.Many time the offline mode in steam refused to work for me for specific games.

 

[Rhymer]

...

What I'm really interested now is the comparison between cracked and uncracked versions of FIFA 15, Lords of The Fallen and Dragon Age: Inquisition.

...

My god, for a second there I read it as "FIFA 15: Lords of The Fallen", and the world was a better place.

Also, ironically, Game Dev Tycoon.

Superb way of dealing with DRM and piracy with a clever twist. I remember wondering if they'd touch on the subject when I first read about the game.