Red Dead Redemption 2 DRM still has not been cracked (316 days)(crackwatch.com)
crackwatch.com
Red Dead Redemption 2 DRM still has not been cracked (316 days)
https://crackwatch.com/game/red-dead-redemption-2
262 コメント
I interviewed with Arxan. I've been generally impressed with their stuff.
Was it an interesting interview? Sounds like it would be an interesting place to work.
It was a typical startup: somewhat disorganized, but with some interesting technical questions.
I didn't know nearly as much about reversing back when I interviewed as I did now. Most of the questions were on the order of "come up with better ideas than we have", which IMHO is probably not the best way to interview.
I didn't know nearly as much about reversing back when I interviewed as I did now. Most of the questions were on the order of "come up with better ideas than we have", which IMHO is probably not the best way to interview.
I'm also interested in what was impressive with them. STORY TIME! Tell us a story!
I work on anti-DRM techniques for a living.
The experience has shifted my views of DRM. Originally, I saw DRM as highly anti-consumer, and a waste of time and clock cycles. Arguably I do still believe that - but now I have great respect for the technical side of good DRM implementations, and I acknowledge that they provide a time buffer to protect against the first wave of piracy.
I've stripped Arxran's protections from software in the past, and I might just have a look at breaking RDR2 now it's been brought to my attention...
The experience has shifted my views of DRM. Originally, I saw DRM as highly anti-consumer, and a waste of time and clock cycles. Arguably I do still believe that - but now I have great respect for the technical side of good DRM implementations, and I acknowledge that they provide a time buffer to protect against the first wave of piracy.
I've stripped Arxran's protections from software in the past, and I might just have a look at breaking RDR2 now it's been brought to my attention...
It's definitely anticonsumer.
I've no doubt that from a technical point of view, both DRM and the efforts to crack it are fascinating and interesting.
What I don't understand is this: consumers don't crack DRM; crackers and warez groups do. Once cracked, DRM is as good as nothing and it's low effort for an everyday gamer to get and play pirated games.
So this antipiracy "buffer" is only for crackers. For gamers it's just as if the game had a delayed release date.
For legit customers, the DRM is often intrusive and, because it's so complex and fiddly, often breaks in bizarre ways, giving rise to the paradoxical situation that the legit game is harder to use than the pirated game!
Only legitimate buyers lose.
I've no doubt that from a technical point of view, both DRM and the efforts to crack it are fascinating and interesting.
What I don't understand is this: consumers don't crack DRM; crackers and warez groups do. Once cracked, DRM is as good as nothing and it's low effort for an everyday gamer to get and play pirated games.
So this antipiracy "buffer" is only for crackers. For gamers it's just as if the game had a delayed release date.
For legit customers, the DRM is often intrusive and, because it's so complex and fiddly, often breaks in bizarre ways, giving rise to the paradoxical situation that the legit game is harder to use than the pirated game!
Only legitimate buyers lose.
I believe the cracked games are on sufficiently obscure websites to be a deterrent to regular users. So maybe 10% of those people that would otherwise not have paid will just buy a DRM game instead of cracking it.
One could even argue that it is pro consumer by making sure the revenue will go back to paying consumers in the form of additional content, instead of paying for players who didn't buy it.
One could even argue that it is pro consumer by making sure the revenue will go back to paying consumers in the form of additional content, instead of paying for players who didn't buy it.
This is just one piece of anecdata, but I'm perfectly capable of pirating games yet haven't in years. I buy everything on steam or gog because it's so convenient. The last time I pirated any video games was suprise surprise when I wasn't making enough income to buy them.
TV series on the other hand I still pirate to this day (if they aren't on the couple of streaming services I sub to), because buying them is way too complicated (even impossible with a large portion of shows that aren't current, and a fair number of current shows too).
Movies are a mixed bag - grabbing cheap dvds or blu rays of pretty much anything is easy online so I usually do that, but I imagine if I preferred digital media or watched enough movies for my physical collection to be unwieldy I'd resort to piracy because buying digital copies of movies is just as complicated as TV.
Give me "Steam for Movies and TV" or a streaming service that aggregates licenses from everyone, and doesn't only host the content that they think will be most popular and I'll probably stop pirating those too.
TV series on the other hand I still pirate to this day (if they aren't on the couple of streaming services I sub to), because buying them is way too complicated (even impossible with a large portion of shows that aren't current, and a fair number of current shows too).
Movies are a mixed bag - grabbing cheap dvds or blu rays of pretty much anything is easy online so I usually do that, but I imagine if I preferred digital media or watched enough movies for my physical collection to be unwieldy I'd resort to piracy because buying digital copies of movies is just as complicated as TV.
Give me "Steam for Movies and TV" or a streaming service that aggregates licenses from everyone, and doesn't only host the content that they think will be most popular and I'll probably stop pirating those too.
It's the unreliability I can't tolerate. I don't pirate pc games because when I buy something on Steam it will always be available for me to download, even if a licensing problem means other people can't buy it.
With streaming, who knows? Maybe Netflix loses the rights and it disappears. Maybe their encode is garbage and it ruins the dark scenes. So, I still pay for streaming services but anything I actually care about I download and archive.
With streaming, who knows? Maybe Netflix loses the rights and it disappears. Maybe their encode is garbage and it ruins the dark scenes. So, I still pay for streaming services but anything I actually care about I download and archive.
> Maybe Netflix loses the rights and it disappears.
That is interesting because it happened to me in the most annoying way possible:
I was watching Donnie Darko, a rather obscure movie that requires (or at least for me required) a bit of brainpower to watch. So I watched the first half of it and planned to watch the remainder the next day. Come the next day, and where is the movie? Nowhere to be found.
That is interesting because it happened to me in the most annoying way possible:
I was watching Donnie Darko, a rather obscure movie that requires (or at least for me required) a bit of brainpower to watch. So I watched the first half of it and planned to watch the remainder the next day. Come the next day, and where is the movie? Nowhere to be found.
Hah. I had bookmarked Donnie Darko because, while I had already watched it (good movie, even better soundtrack!) I wanted to watch it again with my wife. I swear it was available the week before I finally decided to rewatch it, then of course it was gone when I wanted it.
(By the way, I know this doesn't actually happen, but I swear Netflix sticks in my bookmarks movies and shows I never bookmarked!)
(By the way, I know this doesn't actually happen, but I swear Netflix sticks in my bookmarks movies and shows I never bookmarked!)
That happened to me with Stargate SG-1. Was going through it on Netflix and suddenly it disappeared. Eventually resurfaced on Amazon Prime but the video quality is garbage on it for some reason.
Prime Video quality seems breathtakingly bad to me as well. Even their "high quality, 8GB per hour" setting looks remarkably worse than a 4GB h264 rip, to say nothing of HEVC.
I actually didn't mean video quality on Amazon Prime in general. For example, we just got done watching Mr. Robot on Amazon Prime and I had no issues with the video, personally. But Stargate SG-1 was particularly bad, for some reason. Worse than SD, lots of artifacts.
I was mid-way through watching the newly released (on Netflix) S2 of "Derry Girls" and they deleted it mere days after making it available. I was annoyed. Turns out they had messed up the rights.
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-07-14/derry-g...
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-07-14/derry-g...
> when I buy something on Steam it will always be available for me to download
At least, until Steam goes offline, or maybe your account gets lost. I for one still use Steam, but I do wonder if I'll be able to play my favorite games in 20 years.
A plain EXE from itch, GOG, or some other source will work as long as compatible hardware lives on.
At least, until Steam goes offline, or maybe your account gets lost. I for one still use Steam, but I do wonder if I'll be able to play my favorite games in 20 years.
A plain EXE from itch, GOG, or some other source will work as long as compatible hardware lives on.
a key feature missing from netflix and amazon prime (and presumably the others, I haven't tried them) is the ability to force a certain quality for the stream. AFAIK, they don't even indicate in the UI whether your stream is 480p, 1080p, or 2160p. youtube has had this feature for at least a decade and even most porn sites seem to have it now.
if this is somehow "too complicated" for the average user, just make the default an "auto" setting that does whatever it does now and bury it in a menu somewhere.
if this is somehow "too complicated" for the average user, just make the default an "auto" setting that does whatever it does now and bury it in a menu somewhere.
Same boat for movies. I used to use icefilms or torrents extensively for every film. But now my first stop is Justwatch to find out what service has the film I want to watch, and then I log into that service and buy it.
Admittedly some services, like RedBox, are more frustrating than torrenting though.
Admittedly some services, like RedBox, are more frustrating than torrenting though.
Another big deterrent to pirating games is the possibility of it installing malware in your system.
That danger is almost exclusive to software piracy. The probability of being infected by an evil pdf, mp3 or mp4 is really low if you know what you're doing (i.e. updating and using decent software).
That danger is almost exclusive to software piracy. The probability of being infected by an evil pdf, mp3 or mp4 is really low if you know what you're doing (i.e. updating and using decent software).
An effective DRM technique would be to spread a version of the game without DRM but with lots of malware in it then.
Adding my voice to this argument: Xbox live stopped my pirating simply by providing a more easily accessible alternative and with prices that are competitive enough for me to prefer to pay for games rather than getting through the hassle of pirating.
This included RDR2. Totally worth it.
This included RDR2. Totally worth it.
Cracked games websites are as obscure as The Pirate Bay, i.e. not very. Plus everyone who downloads a pirated game points his/her friends to the site, or directly shares the downloaded files. Even if you weren't aware of where to get warez, your friends will be.
> One could even argue that it is pro consumer
One really couldn't. It punishes buyers with encumbered software while merely delaying pirates a short while. Pirates end up with the better experience, so...
> One could even argue that it is pro consumer
One really couldn't. It punishes buyers with encumbered software while merely delaying pirates a short while. Pirates end up with the better experience, so...
> Cracked games websites are as obscure as The Pirate Bay, i.e. not very. Plus everyone who downloads a pirated game points his/her friends to the site, or directly shares the downloaded files. Even if you weren't aware of where to get warez, your friends will be.
you might be surprised at how obscure torrents have become outside of tech circles. when I graduated college (2017), basically no one outside of the comp sci department understood how to use torrents (or even knew what they were). this would have been unthinkable when I was in high school. everyone and their mother seemed to be torrenting music and movies.
I even tried explaining how to use them to people, but they would object that the school would catch them anyway. when I explained how VPNs work, they complained that $6/month was too expensive for a poor college student. nevermind that they're already paying for prime, netflix, and hulu subscriptions every month.
I think there are two main reasons for this. a lot of people have laptops with the base storage option, often a 256GB or even 128GB ssd. phones have even less storage. this makes it unappealing to keep a local library of music and especially movies (plus now that everyone has a phone and a laptop, syncing your collection becomes annoying). second, I think video and especially music streaming services have actually succeeded in making their products just convenient enough that people don't feel like figuring out how to use torrent trackers and clients.
you might be surprised at how obscure torrents have become outside of tech circles. when I graduated college (2017), basically no one outside of the comp sci department understood how to use torrents (or even knew what they were). this would have been unthinkable when I was in high school. everyone and their mother seemed to be torrenting music and movies.
I even tried explaining how to use them to people, but they would object that the school would catch them anyway. when I explained how VPNs work, they complained that $6/month was too expensive for a poor college student. nevermind that they're already paying for prime, netflix, and hulu subscriptions every month.
I think there are two main reasons for this. a lot of people have laptops with the base storage option, often a 256GB or even 128GB ssd. phones have even less storage. this makes it unappealing to keep a local library of music and especially movies (plus now that everyone has a phone and a laptop, syncing your collection becomes annoying). second, I think video and especially music streaming services have actually succeeded in making their products just convenient enough that people don't feel like figuring out how to use torrent trackers and clients.
>as obscure as The Pirate Bay, i.e. not very
Blocked in Europe, China, Australia, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_T...
Blocked in Europe, China, Australia, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_T...
... and I'm sure there are no ways around that, right? Wink, wink.
opening a pdf is a difficult task for most people
exaggerating slightly but you know what I mean
exaggerating slightly but you know what I mean
All it takes is one of your friends who knows how to. Then they'll share with you. And much like opening PDFs, this isn't rocket science.
The base knowledge here is people who know how to install and play pretty complex games. These people go to impossible lengths to install video drivers and troubleshoot problems with their computers; I'm sure they won't find this particular task very difficult.
The base knowledge here is people who know how to install and play pretty complex games. These people go to impossible lengths to install video drivers and troubleshoot problems with their computers; I'm sure they won't find this particular task very difficult.
All of these blockades are simple ISP-level DNS redirections. Simply changing your DNS to google or cloudflare or similar resolves this quite nicely, no VPN needed.
Just as recent as yesterday I accessed TPB while connected to a VPN server located in Sweden.
I don't think it's the obscurity of the website that is doing it these days. I have plenty of money so I haven't downloaded warez for a long time. But if I were even tempted the possibility of getting hit with embedded ransomware would completely deter me, my multiple offsite backups notwithstanding.
> For gamers it's just as if the game had a delayed release date.
When released, games sell for full price ($70 or whatever it is today), then the price starts going down. Most of the sales happen in a short period after the release.
Someone who wouldn't have bought the game even for $10 will not generate revenue no matter whether it's cracked on day 0 or day 60. Someone who's willing to pay $45 may buy a discounted copy if that's available before the crack, and someone who's willing to pay full price and wants the game within 10 days of release is much more likely to pay if a crack isn't available.
When released, games sell for full price ($70 or whatever it is today), then the price starts going down. Most of the sales happen in a short period after the release.
Someone who wouldn't have bought the game even for $10 will not generate revenue no matter whether it's cracked on day 0 or day 60. Someone who's willing to pay $45 may buy a discounted copy if that's available before the crack, and someone who's willing to pay full price and wants the game within 10 days of release is much more likely to pay if a crack isn't available.
Games usually go from DRM to cracked faster than they go from $70 to $10.
Plus there's the issue of not buying DRM'ed games out of principle.
Plus there's the issue of not buying DRM'ed games out of principle.
This post is literally about a game that never did that so what's your point?
As far as I could tell the game is still sold at around 40€ so OP's point still stands.
The way I see it, considering games are made to make money, the only alternative to DRM is going free to play. They then make their money with microtransactions.
Thankfully the people who made the vast collection of GOG and Humble Bundle games I own disagreed.
>For legit customers, the DRM is often intrusive and, because it's so complex and fiddly, often breaks in bizarre ways, giving rise to the paradoxical situation that the legit game is harder to use than the pirated game!
This is stuff you only read on certain forums. Most people don't even notice DRM
This is stuff you only read on certain forums. Most people don't even notice DRM
I can't play games that I've purchased because of DRM.
In some cases because I've switched to linux and the security breaching rootkits that they want me to install don't work correctly there.
In other cases it's very old games for which the authentication servers no longer exist.
It's a real problem.
>Linux
I feel sorry for Linux users but you must know game companies don't really care about you guys.
Steam and Proton beg to disagree. The biggest blocker "left" for games right now is the "Easy Anti Cheat" employed by titles such as Rainbow 6: Siege
Unfortunately Epic is notoriously Anti-Linux, from their CEO down. So the status of EAC under Linux is a giant question mark
Unfortunately Epic is notoriously Anti-Linux, from their CEO down. So the status of EAC under Linux is a giant question mark
That's most anti-cheats, not just Epic's. BattleEye has taken it a step further and even blocked virtual machines. Even Valve's own VAC has issues with Proton: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues/3225
I use BattleEye on my gaming VM to play Mount and Blade Warband without any issues...
Watch out then. BattleEye has started banning VMs: https://www.reddit.com/r/VFIO/comments/hts1o1/be_is_banning_...
Seems to be speculation and anecdata but thanks for the link all the same, wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be true. Disappointing. Haven't played multiplayer in a few weeks so I could be in for an unpleasant surprise next time...
That is just Valve securing their future, and even then it never goes higher than 2%.
It is quite telling that studios rather target ChromeOS or Android than any proper Linux distribution, the days of Loki are long gone.
It is quite telling that studios rather target ChromeOS or Android than any proper Linux distribution, the days of Loki are long gone.
The anti cheat R6 using is Battleye instead of EAC.
And the reason anticheat did not works with wine is mostly because they use kernel modules, which you obviously can't run a windows kernel module on linux kernel.
If you run it in a VM, most of them will just fine with it.
(But the Battleye will give you a big "fxxk you")
And the reason anticheat did not works with wine is mostly because they use kernel modules, which you obviously can't run a windows kernel module on linux kernel.
If you run it in a VM, most of them will just fine with it.
(But the Battleye will give you a big "fxxk you")
Of all the games companies I have ever worked for, Linux support has honestly never really come up, except, perhaps in some side "I wonder if we can" R&D project.
Granted I've only worked in smaller studios - but anecdotally, OP is correct - game companies don't care about Linux users, high expense for such a small market share.
Granted I've only worked in smaller studios - but anecdotally, OP is correct - game companies don't care about Linux users, high expense for such a small market share.
Which is kind of funny its very difficult to pirate games on linux but easy to pay for a pretty good selection of games.
Windows has a larger selection but its also incredibly trivial to pirate.
I've never bought more games than when I had no windows install at all.
Windows has a larger selection but its also incredibly trivial to pirate.
I've never bought more games than when I had no windows install at all.
You can trivially play Windows games on Linux thanks to Steam Play and proton. I've done so since 2018. Most games that don't work are broken because of DRM. Some more are broken because of some minor thing like missing video codec but very few games actually use proprietary codecs like WMV. The rest just work.
I didn't have a good experience with it in 2020 after much fiddling I couldn't get proton to work for anything despite having reasonable success with wine and crossover.
Maybe it works better on Ubuntu.
Maybe it works better on Ubuntu.
Those who don't notice it are those who aren't aware of what DRM even means. As long as it's not multiplayer, legit repacks and cracked releases are almost always an improvement to a DRM'd release unless the game's official release (on which the cracked release is based on) itself is buggy.
>This is stuff you only read on certain forums. Most people don't even notice DRM
I can give this a "me too" to an extant. I use to be like, "Rah rah! Down with DRM!" years ago, but at some point I kinda forgot that DRM even exists—it just no longer comes up in my lifestyle at all.
This thread is an example of this. I saw the thread title and was like, "Oh right...DRM and cracking games...right right right..." that is a thing that
I can give this a "me too" to an extant. I use to be like, "Rah rah! Down with DRM!" years ago, but at some point I kinda forgot that DRM even exists—it just no longer comes up in my lifestyle at all.
This thread is an example of this. I saw the thread title and was like, "Oh right...DRM and cracking games...right right right..." that is a thing that
> Most people don't even notice DRM
Just because they don't know what to blame, doesn't mean they don't notice it.
A prominent example is performance degradation with Denuvo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_DD-txK9_Q
Just because they don't know what to blame, doesn't mean they don't notice it.
A prominent example is performance degradation with Denuvo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_DD-txK9_Q
[deleted]
No. I remember trying to play Batman Arkham Asylum back in the day and it was a pain in the ass. First Steam. Then it wanted me to log in to some silly Windows Game system. Why? It's a single player game and I bought it via Steam, where I'm already logged in. Anyway, I couldn't register and got tons of errors until I finally managed it. Then it wanted me to download a ton of updates (almost as much as the original download) over a slow internet connection. It's a single player game, for crying out loud -- let me choose whether I want the updates! I had downloaded the game the day before, I had a couple of spare hours and wanted to play the goddamn game (spoiler: I wasn't able to that day).
Had I downloaded the warezed version, I wouldn't have needed: a- Steam, b- the Windows whatever login, c- the updates. Best experience goes to: pirated version. (Had I wanted the patches: pirates eventually release updated versions, too).
For the record, these days I do like Steam, though I far prefer GOG and DRM-free games (when I have the time to play games at all, that is. Which is almost never).
Had I downloaded the warezed version, I wouldn't have needed: a- Steam, b- the Windows whatever login, c- the updates. Best experience goes to: pirated version. (Had I wanted the patches: pirates eventually release updated versions, too).
For the record, these days I do like Steam, though I far prefer GOG and DRM-free games (when I have the time to play games at all, that is. Which is almost never).
> Once cracked, DRM is as good as nothing and it's low effort for an everyday gamer to get and play pirated games.
I think you're overstating this quite a bit. It's basically only true for games that are single-player (with a few exceptions), and are not currently receiving frequent updates (or you are categorically not interested in updates). Besides that, e.g. Steam is extremely convenient; installs are rapid and safe, saves are synced across different machines, mods are often well integrated with Steam Workshop, etc.
For many, the above list is easily worth the price to pay. It's not like once DRM is cracked, sales drop to zero. DRM exists because the profit-minded companies find that at some level of investment in DRM, they get a good ROI.
I think you're overstating this quite a bit. It's basically only true for games that are single-player (with a few exceptions), and are not currently receiving frequent updates (or you are categorically not interested in updates). Besides that, e.g. Steam is extremely convenient; installs are rapid and safe, saves are synced across different machines, mods are often well integrated with Steam Workshop, etc.
For many, the above list is easily worth the price to pay. It's not like once DRM is cracked, sales drop to zero. DRM exists because the profit-minded companies find that at some level of investment in DRM, they get a good ROI.
> Besides that, e.g. Steam is extremely convenient; installs are rapid and safe, saves are synced across different machines, mods are often well integrated with Steam Workshop, etc.
For me Steam is a huge annoiance: every time I want to play a game it keep bugging me with that the client needs an update or with chat windows. It is slow and sluggish compared to the steam store website. And worst of all, some games don't play when you're offline, even though they are just single player games.
Maybe it's because I'm just a casual player nowadays so features like friends lists that keep popping up are not useful for me and the frequent updates never change anything because I'm not using any of the features they update. But Steam is not the solution for everyone.
For me Steam is a huge annoiance: every time I want to play a game it keep bugging me with that the client needs an update or with chat windows. It is slow and sluggish compared to the steam store website. And worst of all, some games don't play when you're offline, even though they are just single player games.
Maybe it's because I'm just a casual player nowadays so features like friends lists that keep popping up are not useful for me and the frequent updates never change anything because I'm not using any of the features they update. But Steam is not the solution for everyone.
There's two ways you can get rid of the friends list chat windows...
1. Create a shortcut for Steam that includes the "-nofriendsui" parameter in it's target.
2. Stop having friends.
1. Create a shortcut for Steam that includes the "-nofriendsui" parameter in it's target.
2. Stop having friends.
Steam is indeed very convenient (though occasionally annoying: like a sibling comment said, I don't need its "social" features and its popups annoy me). Note that before Steam, GOG, etc, when games were sold on discs, piracy was really more convenient. Nowadays the issue is contested, though DRM remains annoying as hell.
I do place Steam in a different category, and I own many of their games.
I do place Steam in a different category, and I own many of their games.
> Besides that, e.g. Steam is extremely convenient;
For me, Steam is basically spyware that I don't want on my laptop. It's actually a barrier to me playing games because when I (rarely) consider purchasing something then see it's in Steam, my usual reaction is not too bother. It's my computer, I don't want a 3rd party "store" managing my installs. I feel the same way about the windows store fwiw.
> installs are rapid and safe
Just like normal computer programs then?
> saves are synced across different machines
Possibly useful but not really important to me.
> mods are often well integrated with Steam Workshop, etc.
Didn't know about this one, interesting. But I've never found it hard to install mods for games in the past, without Steam.
Overall it's something I never needed and now that it's being pushed on me, I don't want it.
For me, Steam is basically spyware that I don't want on my laptop. It's actually a barrier to me playing games because when I (rarely) consider purchasing something then see it's in Steam, my usual reaction is not too bother. It's my computer, I don't want a 3rd party "store" managing my installs. I feel the same way about the windows store fwiw.
> installs are rapid and safe
Just like normal computer programs then?
> saves are synced across different machines
Possibly useful but not really important to me.
> mods are often well integrated with Steam Workshop, etc.
Didn't know about this one, interesting. But I've never found it hard to install mods for games in the past, without Steam.
Overall it's something I never needed and now that it's being pushed on me, I don't want it.
In a game like rimworld where it can be typical to run with 30 or 50 mods at a time and swap out different ones, you need a system and steam workshop is that system.
But it's not the only system. Factorio, like Rimworld, has a huge mod scene and has it built into the game instead. Which has the advantage of working outside of Steam on a DRM-free (or not-steam) copy, which like another reply says, just makes Steam Workshop another form of lock-in on Steam.
Except the forced updates can easily break mods and managing your mods with the steam workshop is garbage. Even the terminology is bad, subscribed doesn't mean download and install to me.
Workshop isn't perfect but it's a good enough solution for most games. Especially simulator games where the authors knew how to make a sim but have no idea how to handle mods (for example)
I think you can stick to a specific version if you want with rimworld, many mods are updated fairly fast although and even if they haven't been updated tend to work anyway.
Steam Workshop is also part of Valve's "walled garden" strategy. Say that you bought a game off GOG and looking for some specific mods. If they aren't on Nexus, Moddb or some other website but only on Steam Workshop (where too many are), you won't be able to get access to them. So you either enter Steam's garden where they will try everything to make sure you won't leave...or you are out of luck.
I hear you, and the privacy arguments are valid. Just to add, however:
>> installs are rapid and safe > Just like normal computer programs then?
No, not really. Compared with piracy, their servers are generally much faster than torrenting (with the exception of insanely popular items on torrents). The installs are usually one-click affairs, not needing to click through 5 pages of "next", and telling it to not try to install on the tiny C:\ drive SSD which doesn't have enough space. Installed games are listed in one place, and tend to uninstall instantly, which is not the case with most normal installers. Their installer manager can also do verification of game file integrity, which is surprisingly often a solution to people's crash problems. In terms of safety, viruses are a non-issue, unlike torrented games.
I do get the privacy arguments, and tend to agree with those. A good alternative would be GoG, which has a decent catalog of games, and offers both offline, DRM-free installers (I believe this is still the case), or a Steam-style download manager for those that want the convenience. I'm unsure, but looking at the company behind it, I would argue they are "slightly less evil", and would probably make even their downloader more privacy-friendly.
But really, I think this is all really just a case of whether our needs match that of the average bloke on the street. On HN, we tend to be very privacy-conscious, but I think it's important that basically _nobody_ outside of this niche gives one thought to how Steam is invading their privacy, or how DRM might be bad, unless they have a direct bad experience (e.g. not being able to launch a game offline). It's like the whole NoJS argument for websites - 99.99% of the world doesn't care, and unless your target audience is extremely skewed in this direction, they will not care about it.
>> installs are rapid and safe > Just like normal computer programs then?
No, not really. Compared with piracy, their servers are generally much faster than torrenting (with the exception of insanely popular items on torrents). The installs are usually one-click affairs, not needing to click through 5 pages of "next", and telling it to not try to install on the tiny C:\ drive SSD which doesn't have enough space. Installed games are listed in one place, and tend to uninstall instantly, which is not the case with most normal installers. Their installer manager can also do verification of game file integrity, which is surprisingly often a solution to people's crash problems. In terms of safety, viruses are a non-issue, unlike torrented games.
I do get the privacy arguments, and tend to agree with those. A good alternative would be GoG, which has a decent catalog of games, and offers both offline, DRM-free installers (I believe this is still the case), or a Steam-style download manager for those that want the convenience. I'm unsure, but looking at the company behind it, I would argue they are "slightly less evil", and would probably make even their downloader more privacy-friendly.
But really, I think this is all really just a case of whether our needs match that of the average bloke on the street. On HN, we tend to be very privacy-conscious, but I think it's important that basically _nobody_ outside of this niche gives one thought to how Steam is invading their privacy, or how DRM might be bad, unless they have a direct bad experience (e.g. not being able to launch a game offline). It's like the whole NoJS argument for websites - 99.99% of the world doesn't care, and unless your target audience is extremely skewed in this direction, they will not care about it.
> their servers are generally much faster than torrenting
That seems unlikely, at least for "much" faster. I torrent movies occasionally and even fairly unpopular ones often max out my download speed. Unless you're downloading something obscure, bittorrent is really fast.
That seems unlikely, at least for "much" faster. I torrent movies occasionally and even fairly unpopular ones often max out my download speed. Unless you're downloading something obscure, bittorrent is really fast.
It's quite possible that our experiences differ. For me, Steam is the one that regularly maxes out my line (at around 300 mbits/sec), while with torrents, I normally get around 1/10th of that. It may well be my VPN provider, though it does seem to depend on popularity, choice of exit endpoint, etc.
Steam's CDN(Limelight) provides the fastest download speed in my experience (like 600Mbps, limited by my connection). Maybe very popular torrent is also faster but not to be guarantee to be.
> It's definitely anticonsumer.
If you assign the value lost to piracy as $0 (i.e pirates wouldn't buy) or you assume any extra money earned by less piracy is never going to benefit consumers in lower prices, then your argument holds.
If twice as many paying customers means half the prices, then there is a benefit to consumers. The truth is somewhere between these two extremes of course.
But yes - once the DRM is completely cracked, the game should at least be patched to remove the DRM. That would give a window of N days without making the game worse forever.
If you assign the value lost to piracy as $0 (i.e pirates wouldn't buy) or you assume any extra money earned by less piracy is never going to benefit consumers in lower prices, then your argument holds.
If twice as many paying customers means half the prices, then there is a benefit to consumers. The truth is somewhere between these two extremes of course.
But yes - once the DRM is completely cracked, the game should at least be patched to remove the DRM. That would give a window of N days without making the game worse forever.
> Only legitimate buyers lose.
The publishers and developers apparently also lose...
Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15319476 EU commisions a study on the effects of piracy on media sells. The results are not what they expected so they try and hide them. This is "leaked" by a member of parliament.
According to that study, specifically for game piracy, every copy of the game that was pirated resulted in 1.24 copies sold, meaning that effective DRM actually reduces sales.
So the only ones who don't lose are those making the DRM.
The publishers and developers apparently also lose...
Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15319476 EU commisions a study on the effects of piracy on media sells. The results are not what they expected so they try and hide them. This is "leaked" by a member of parliament.
According to that study, specifically for game piracy, every copy of the game that was pirated resulted in 1.24 copies sold, meaning that effective DRM actually reduces sales.
So the only ones who don't lose are those making the DRM.
For gamers, it means that the studio may be able to afford to release a sequel to their favourite games
For pirates, it means they either have to wait until it's cracked, or buy a legit copy
Don't act like every gamer is automatically a pirate, millions of people are perfectly happy to pay for games and want to see their favourite studios continue
For pirates, it means they either have to wait until it's cracked, or buy a legit copy
Don't act like every gamer is automatically a pirate, millions of people are perfectly happy to pay for games and want to see their favourite studios continue
> Don't act like every gamer is automatically a pirate, millions of people are perfectly happy to pay for games and want to see their favourite studios continue
I'm not sure where you got the idea I said this. I don't think every gamer is automatically a pirate, though a lot of people do follow the path of least resistance.
I pay for my videogames. I support indie devs that don't bundle DRM crap with their games. For AAA DRM-ridden games, I simply don't buy or play them. (To be honest, I don't have a lot of time to play any games these days).
DRM is anticonsumer for legal buyers. It gives them a worse experience than the people who play pirated copies.
I'm not sure where you got the idea I said this. I don't think every gamer is automatically a pirate, though a lot of people do follow the path of least resistance.
I pay for my videogames. I support indie devs that don't bundle DRM crap with their games. For AAA DRM-ridden games, I simply don't buy or play them. (To be honest, I don't have a lot of time to play any games these days).
DRM is anticonsumer for legal buyers. It gives them a worse experience than the people who play pirated copies.
Have you ever encountered any DRM using M/o/Vfuscator (compiler that only produces mov instructions) or REpsych (psychological warfare against reverse engineers)? The DEF CON talk about REpsych is pretty hilarious and worth watching.
https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/movfuscator https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/REpsych
https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/movfuscator https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/REpsych
Unfortunately I have encountered neither in the real world, although I have defeated both in CTFs before.
The defeats sound interesting, have you documented those anywhere?
I haven't personally, but you will find multiple writeups googling for "movfuscator ctf writeup" etc.
You may be interested in the demovfuscator - https://github.com/kirschju/demovfuscator
Wait, how do you make a living from that? Like publishers need you to break their stuff out so they can resell it long after the developer is gone or something?
Yes, I'm curious about what kind of (legal) paying job needs that sort of skill set.
Organizations that apply 3rd party DRM to their products often want independent verification that the DRM functions as intended (there's a lot of snake-oil), and a quantification of how much time/effort it takes to break the DRM.
Dream job. If I thought I could get paid doing that I would have been set at 17 years old. Now I'm 38 and still dream of my reversing days. :)
Wow. Kind of like red-team hackers testing the security of their website or whatever. Sounds like a dream job for the right person...a "drmcometru" if you will ;)
Very cool, very cool. Thank you!
The user who answered you isn't the one you were asking (it's still a possible answer).
Did you get mixed up? I see
- drmcometru
- me
- drmcometru
- me
Whoops, that's embarrassing.
I quit working at Reddit a few years ago and don't do much there any more, but yes, that's me. Thanks!
I quit working at Reddit a few years ago and don't do much there any more, but yes, that's me. Thanks!
... Yes it is
Another answer is that some companies need the DRM broken on software where the original developer's company may no longer even exist, yet they rely on the (often extremely old) software for their critical production line equipment, whose replacement costs would far exceed that of breaking the DRM and sometimes "porting" the software to new hardware (i.e. breaking the DRM may be a first step.) This is often the realm of hardware dongles and such.
You should try strip away the current Denevuo, that is the big challenge, current versions nobody seems able to crack for some time.
Do you think there's any hope? Because I've lost all of it.
> I work on anti-DRM techniques for a living.
Who's paying for anti-DRM work?
Who's paying for anti-DRM work?
Is your company hiring?
This type of DRM can eat something crazy like >50% CPU when playing. Dense dynamic recompilation, running inside obfuscated VM, etc.
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/282924-denuvo-really-does...
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/282924-denuvo-really-does...
Worked with Arxan's technology for a bit. Not surprised it is getting to the point where cracker's don't have the time to break it.
Embracing the point that everything can be broken eventually, the focus becomes just making it take a long time, such that it is not economical, or simply too time consuming "for fun". Arxan's toolkit includes peppering custom checks everywhere in the code, including mechanisms so these checks don't have the same signature and can't be searched for easily once one is found. Further, there are "silent ones", which most of the time don't do anything, but at some point will activate. This makes it so you can think you've broken the protection, and then e.g. one hour into playing the game it randomly seg-faults (crashes with an error indistinguishable from a normal bug, through deliberate memory corruption), or flags your hardware as using a cracked version and blacklists it. Imagine trying to figure out if memory corruption was on purpose or a normal bug when the corruption happened 1,000,000,000 instructions ago by a section of code that is completely innocuous and just had an off-by-1 error introduced via some index calculation. Now imagine there are 500,000 of these little silent/time-delay traps sprinkled all over the code.
In that way it can be nearly impossible to know if you've fully cracked the game. I mean you can really take the long-con with these things, and let it run for weeks, or even just never notify the user and hit them with a blacklist. Imagine playing a game for 100 hours and then out of nowhere having your progress wiped - pretty harsh lesson if you were invested in it.
Then there is the binary + in-memory encryption, and customization of protection for every install. This was one of the holy grails as I understood it - you could make the software such that the protection system is completely custom for every install of the software, which makes binary patching useless. This would be difficult when distributing the software on discs, but, and this is a key point, trivial these days where games are downloaded. It is easy to custom generate binaries for everyone. This can do things like use a custom key based on your HWID that is literally necessary to decrypt portions of the game code. There is no way around having the correct key for your hardware to literally decrypt and run the code, which through other techniques can be made custom and further checked for authenticity, making it impossible to simply get the decrypted code and patch it in to other installs. Related techniques can be used to determine if you're running a binary that was decrypted on a different machine, and that is before getting into code that is custom-encrypted and decrypted in-memory at runtime based on your current HWID. You're probably thinking you can reason your way around this, but trust me, it has all been thought of before. The closest you could probably come is forcing cracked clients to all run in some kind of identical virtual machine, which is going to be shit for playing a AAA game even if it worked and no protections were able to figure out they were running in a virtual machine, which they can.
The list goes on for this tech, and while no single tech is super effective, when they are all put together, it adds up to a knot that very few people will have the motivation or monetary incentive to sort out, or even ability to in a relevant amount of time after the games release. By the time they figure it the next update could be released, and all that is left is to look back in misery at the time of their life they wasted cracking an old version of a game.
Embracing the point that everything can be broken eventually, the focus becomes just making it take a long time, such that it is not economical, or simply too time consuming "for fun". Arxan's toolkit includes peppering custom checks everywhere in the code, including mechanisms so these checks don't have the same signature and can't be searched for easily once one is found. Further, there are "silent ones", which most of the time don't do anything, but at some point will activate. This makes it so you can think you've broken the protection, and then e.g. one hour into playing the game it randomly seg-faults (crashes with an error indistinguishable from a normal bug, through deliberate memory corruption), or flags your hardware as using a cracked version and blacklists it. Imagine trying to figure out if memory corruption was on purpose or a normal bug when the corruption happened 1,000,000,000 instructions ago by a section of code that is completely innocuous and just had an off-by-1 error introduced via some index calculation. Now imagine there are 500,000 of these little silent/time-delay traps sprinkled all over the code.
In that way it can be nearly impossible to know if you've fully cracked the game. I mean you can really take the long-con with these things, and let it run for weeks, or even just never notify the user and hit them with a blacklist. Imagine playing a game for 100 hours and then out of nowhere having your progress wiped - pretty harsh lesson if you were invested in it.
Then there is the binary + in-memory encryption, and customization of protection for every install. This was one of the holy grails as I understood it - you could make the software such that the protection system is completely custom for every install of the software, which makes binary patching useless. This would be difficult when distributing the software on discs, but, and this is a key point, trivial these days where games are downloaded. It is easy to custom generate binaries for everyone. This can do things like use a custom key based on your HWID that is literally necessary to decrypt portions of the game code. There is no way around having the correct key for your hardware to literally decrypt and run the code, which through other techniques can be made custom and further checked for authenticity, making it impossible to simply get the decrypted code and patch it in to other installs. Related techniques can be used to determine if you're running a binary that was decrypted on a different machine, and that is before getting into code that is custom-encrypted and decrypted in-memory at runtime based on your current HWID. You're probably thinking you can reason your way around this, but trust me, it has all been thought of before. The closest you could probably come is forcing cracked clients to all run in some kind of identical virtual machine, which is going to be shit for playing a AAA game even if it worked and no protections were able to figure out they were running in a virtual machine, which they can.
The list goes on for this tech, and while no single tech is super effective, when they are all put together, it adds up to a knot that very few people will have the motivation or monetary incentive to sort out, or even ability to in a relevant amount of time after the games release. By the time they figure it the next update could be released, and all that is left is to look back in misery at the time of their life they wasted cracking an old version of a game.
So it's basically uncrackable. Understood.
The frustrating thing about this DRM is that RDR2 requires an internet connection in order to play the single-player game. At one point my internet was down and I couldn't play it. Obviously not the biggest problem in the world, but still an annoyance.
The biggest concern for me is, what happens when you want to play the game again in 10 years time, when the DRM servers are offline?
When you buy DRM'ed media, you are merely renting it for an unspecified duration.
When you buy DRM'ed media, you are merely renting it for an unspecified duration.
A lot of companies are at least removing the more aggressive DRMs (eg. Denuvo) some time after the prime sales window has passed, at which point they would either have minimal DRM like Steam, or be fully cracked.
Yes. That goes for all media and all software. This whole process gets much easier once you accept that this is actually what you pay for, and anything beyond a short rent, is just a bonus.
Being able to play a game in 10 years, play it offline, or sell it would always be surprising to me. So I wouldn't assume those things to be possible when I buy it.
That obviously makes fewer products worth buying, which saves me money. But quite often both for games and othewr media I come to the conclusion "Yes, I'm happy to pay $60 to play this for 2 weeks even if I never play it again". So long as that's the calculation, there is rarely any disappointment.
Being able to play a game in 10 years, play it offline, or sell it would always be surprising to me. So I wouldn't assume those things to be possible when I buy it.
That obviously makes fewer products worth buying, which saves me money. But quite often both for games and othewr media I come to the conclusion "Yes, I'm happy to pay $60 to play this for 2 weeks even if I never play it again". So long as that's the calculation, there is rarely any disappointment.
I cannot get over this mindset. Are you saying that you are OK with the risk of never getting to re-experience the media that had a formative contribution to your personality during your childhood or early adulthood/teenage years? Your favourite music that brings back memories? There is no guarantee that a particular album or movie will be re-released on a new format. The franchise may never receive a remake, a reboot or a sequel, and there is certainly no guarantee that you will like the creative direction after so many of the original artists/writers have moved on.
10 years passing in the real world shouldn't mean anything to a medium that's frozen in time (like all fiction is). It's still possible to play N64 cartridges, watch VHS tapes, read books. Until they fall apart, that's how long you've got to enjoy them, but they won't do so quickly if you take great care of them. You will be able to pass them on as heirlooms or co-experience them with your descendants. It's a treasured, very human activity. If we don't have memories AND something to care for in the present, what do we even live for? It's not enough to live in the present, we must remain in touch with our heritage.
10 years passing in the real world shouldn't mean anything to a medium that's frozen in time (like all fiction is). It's still possible to play N64 cartridges, watch VHS tapes, read books. Until they fall apart, that's how long you've got to enjoy them, but they won't do so quickly if you take great care of them. You will be able to pass them on as heirlooms or co-experience them with your descendants. It's a treasured, very human activity. If we don't have memories AND something to care for in the present, what do we even live for? It's not enough to live in the present, we must remain in touch with our heritage.
> Are you saying that you are OK with the risk of never getting to re-experience the media that had a formative contribution to your personality during your childhood or early adulthood/teenage years?
No, I mean I think that's a shame - but I just factor it into the equation.
I'm not describing what's acceptable, I'm describing what I think I'm getting for my money, which can be a factor in whether I decide to purchase something at all, or whether I'm happy/disappointed with it. So if I buy a AAA game now for $80 I'll be happy if I can run it at all for 5 years. If that isn't enough for me to buy it, I won't.
There of course is a secondary question here too: should I buy these games even though I'm then contributing to this poor state of affairs when I buy DRM games rather than voting with my wallet? I don't consider that (Although I'd avoid e.g. buying the Oculus heeadset because of the Facebook thing, but that's a whole different level of evil and also affects me personally more).
> It's still possible to play N64 cartridges, watch VHS tapes, read book
And there are probably tons of things from the period after those (2000-2020) that are forever lost because their DRM servers are dead etc. And tbh. it doesn't make me even a little bit sad.
No, I mean I think that's a shame - but I just factor it into the equation.
I'm not describing what's acceptable, I'm describing what I think I'm getting for my money, which can be a factor in whether I decide to purchase something at all, or whether I'm happy/disappointed with it. So if I buy a AAA game now for $80 I'll be happy if I can run it at all for 5 years. If that isn't enough for me to buy it, I won't.
There of course is a secondary question here too: should I buy these games even though I'm then contributing to this poor state of affairs when I buy DRM games rather than voting with my wallet? I don't consider that (Although I'd avoid e.g. buying the Oculus heeadset because of the Facebook thing, but that's a whole different level of evil and also affects me personally more).
> It's still possible to play N64 cartridges, watch VHS tapes, read book
And there are probably tons of things from the period after those (2000-2020) that are forever lost because their DRM servers are dead etc. And tbh. it doesn't make me even a little bit sad.
In 10 years you're better off just playing the 8K remaster on PS6 or maybe just playing red dead redemption 3 which is pretty much the same game but with better graphics and combat.
Yes, the remaster, on a locked-down hardware platform, both of which I will have to pay for again. Hopefully by then I will also be too old to remember what 'anti-consumer' means.
* If you get a remaster at all
* If the current IP owner didn't make a mess of the remastering process (in an aesthetic or technical sense)
* If the remaster is free of defects that make the game unplayable for seasoned users of that game
* If you have the target platfrom of choice that the remaster targets.
In other words, you would have to be very lucky.
* If the current IP owner didn't make a mess of the remastering process (in an aesthetic or technical sense)
* If the remaster is free of defects that make the game unplayable for seasoned users of that game
* If you have the target platfrom of choice that the remaster targets.
In other words, you would have to be very lucky.
Perhaps in 20 years I'll be able to play HL3 instead of HL2 :)
It's a big fucking problem, if you ask me. You pay $60 for a single-player game that you cannot play on your laptop on vacation because of crappy WiFi, or just because your ISP sucks? What-the-actual-fuck.
Does this actually happen though? I mean, I acknowledge the theoretical possibility. Is it a commonplace occurrence? It's never happened to me, personally. If it did I'd likely be frustrated but I'd just play something else for a few days.
To give an example from my own experience, a 13-hour flight is one of the most annoying places to find you can't play the game you'd been expecting to play, and you may not be able to just grab another one.
What 13 hour flight has power outlets that will output the 100+ watts you need to play Red Dead Redemption 2?
This was a Virgin Atlantic 747 (Hong Kong - London). I have a Surface Book 2 which I know has an unusually low-powered power supply (such that gaming will drain the battery even when plugged in), but given how much power sockets are now normal and expected, I'd be surprised if they couldn't handle most laptops.
It looks like a 4800U can run the game at 30fps low settings, and that's a 15 watt part.
And the issue applies to other games and intermittent play too.
And the issue applies to other games and intermittent play too.
I am from Brazil and because of that I never get online-only singleplayer games.
For example I never played Diablo 3, not even in a friend house or a demo (if there is one, I never checked). Ditto for Sim City 5, despite me being a huge fan of Sim City 4.
For example I never played Diablo 3, not even in a friend house or a demo (if there is one, I never checked). Ditto for Sim City 5, despite me being a huge fan of Sim City 4.
You did yourself a huge favour by not playing SimCity 5. The sequel to SimCity 4 came out, and it was called Cities: Skylines.
I know.
I nagged EA to let me fix SimCity 4 bugs, but they didn't help.
I found some former employees and nagged them about stuff, interestingly instead the result was being informed they were trying to organize the release of EASTL, so I nagged EA about THAT instead, and kept talking to the employees. That part DID work.
https://github.com/electronicarts/EASTL
Even with that I still couldn't figure out how to make a patch for SC4 though. (I want to patch out RDTSC, that is the source of many, many of its bugs. SimCity 4 uses RDTSC to count cycles, that is what RDTSC was supposed to do when originally released, but Intel later changed it to count time instead of cycles, SC4 crashes on modern machines for example is because of that).
I nagged EA to let me fix SimCity 4 bugs, but they didn't help.
I found some former employees and nagged them about stuff, interestingly instead the result was being informed they were trying to organize the release of EASTL, so I nagged EA about THAT instead, and kept talking to the employees. That part DID work.
https://github.com/electronicarts/EASTL
Even with that I still couldn't figure out how to make a patch for SC4 though. (I want to patch out RDTSC, that is the source of many, many of its bugs. SimCity 4 uses RDTSC to count cycles, that is what RDTSC was supposed to do when originally released, but Intel later changed it to count time instead of cycles, SC4 crashes on modern machines for example is because of that).
It's happening with increased regularity for me in California with PG&E's "Public Safety Power Shutoffs", where even with a generator to power my home apparently my ISP cannot be bothered to install generators to power their facilities – and my cable internet goes down for the duration of the PSPS (aside from the first 1-2 hours, as it appears the ISP at least has UPSes). The most recent PSPS lasted 48 hours.
In 2019, cumulative PSPS time was nearly one week (though I logged it at the time I forget the exact number now, something like 150ish hours).
For clarity: living outside SV, my ISP is Comcast (Xfinity).
EDIT: I'd like to add that phone tethering isn't a great fallback (though it's better than nothing), as literally everyone begins using their cell connection for everything which causes the latency to be very high and the speed to be frustratingly low.
In 2019, cumulative PSPS time was nearly one week (though I logged it at the time I forget the exact number now, something like 150ish hours).
For clarity: living outside SV, my ISP is Comcast (Xfinity).
EDIT: I'd like to add that phone tethering isn't a great fallback (though it's better than nothing), as literally everyone begins using their cell connection for everything which causes the latency to be very high and the speed to be frustratingly low.
It happens regularly with Ubisoft's Uplay. Like the launcher can't access the Internet so you can't access your games.
I bought two copies of Anno 1404 because I thought I could play with my wife. Big mistake. Uplay is completely busted and I've never been able to get multiplayer working. Wish I could refund that garbage.
The vast majority of the world's population live in places with power outages and flaky internet connectivity. It's extremely commonplace. I live in London and my upstream internet connection is going down multiple times a day at the moment which is extremely frustrating.
It's highly fault intolerant on everything staying the way it is, which means if in the future the internet is temporarily/permanently down for weeks/months for huge swathes of people (e.g. EMP / nuclear war), or the RDR DRM server goes offline temporarily/permanently (will it still be up in 10 year's time?) the game cannot be played. Future fallible not future proof.
Yes. There are plenty of developed countries with awful internet infrastructure. Australia (where I live) is one of those places.
I'm always amazed by this. I live in Vietnam, out of town on a rural road, and I get a solid 60mb connection for both mobile and wired. It's dirt cheap - something like $15 a month for both. Why can't rich countries like Australia manage this? I know population density factors in, but we're not talking about getting data in the outback - just where people actually live.
Because "just where people live" is still a pretty enormous area and there simply isn't political will to build it out properly (See the original NBN FTTH vs the current FTTN rollout).
A lot of the existing infrastructure is very poorly maintained but due to Telstra being privatised back in the 90's but still owning the infrastructure (Under their Wholesale division) the government essentially still has to pay them a fuckton of money to put any new cables in the ground using "Their" conduits.
A lot of the existing infrastructure is very poorly maintained but due to Telstra being privatised back in the 90's but still owning the infrastructure (Under their Wholesale division) the government essentially still has to pay them a fuckton of money to put any new cables in the ground using "Their" conduits.
Our government decided to make our internet infrastructure political rather than choosing what was best for the nation. The right-wing party saw no need for fiber internet, and our left-wing party wanted a proper fiber infrastructure. Australia is massive, and was in dire need of a national infrastructure upgrade.
Rupert Murdoch (who owns Foxtel and a large number of newspapers) is highly right-wing and heavily supported the right-wing government. That government has been changed out since then, but we're left with the lasting effects of their decisions.
Rupert Murdoch (who owns Foxtel and a large number of newspapers) is highly right-wing and heavily supported the right-wing government. That government has been changed out since then, but we're left with the lasting effects of their decisions.
It's probably not a common-place occurrence because anyone who doesn't have perpetual connection to internet just avoids things like this.
I just spent the last month in Colorado mountains doing web development without an internet connection (I walked to the nearest spot on occasion for email). We do exist.
I just spent the last month in Colorado mountains doing web development without an internet connection (I walked to the nearest spot on occasion for email). We do exist.
It doesn’t need to happen often. Just sometimes would be enough for me to switch the publisher to a list of "never buy-always pirate". Unless it came with a big warning, then I just wouldn’t care and not get the game in the first place.
>If it did I'd likely be frustrated but I'd just play something else for a few days.
Except if every game pulled this crap, then you wouldn't be able to play anything while your internet is down.
Except if every game pulled this crap, then you wouldn't be able to play anything while your internet is down.
Usually, when internet is down, I stop working start playing single player games.
I find that extremely offensive, honestly. I'm not allowed to play a god-damned game that I purchased offline when nothing about the actual game requires network access? That's ridiculous!
Not under all circumstances, no. I was in no way blocked from playing it on a brand new PS4 that was never connected to internet. However I pretty reliably experienced, after leaving the PS4 to sleep for longer than 1-2 days, a severe input glitch when I resumed the game. To fix the glitch I had to restart the PS4 and game, which takes more than 5 minutes. Later I plugged in the internet and the glitch never happened again. I never made the connection between the glitch and DRM, but it seems likely to me now that they are related. I had assumed the glitch was a known bug that the developers were disincentivized to fix because they want the internet connected for telemetry.
Within the last 5 years I know some other studios were focusing on single-player experience at ship time knowing people may only have the disk to play, for exmaple service members serving overseas.
In the meantime the PS4 jailbreak went from version 5.05 (where it stagnated for a long time) to 6.72 in July, which was also old by that time, being released in mid July 2019, but which now can run RDR2 up to the patch 1.13 (last on 6.72).
Or to put it differently... If you can't crack the game, crack the os. At least in the console world, this gives you the advantage that anything works up a certain fw version afterwards.
If I remember correctly, the jump from 5.05 to 6.72, added more than 1000 playable games for those who kept the PS4 on 5.05 (myself included).
Sadly, there is not much talk around HN about console hacking. E.g. Here is the bounty submission of Andy Nguyen (theflow0) for 6.72: https://hackerone.com/reports/826026
Sony might have shot itself in the foot by accepting the disclosure at the end... But, then again, they had to and there's not much harm done when the jailbroken fw is a year old.
Or to put it differently... If you can't crack the game, crack the os. At least in the console world, this gives you the advantage that anything works up a certain fw version afterwards.
If I remember correctly, the jump from 5.05 to 6.72, added more than 1000 playable games for those who kept the PS4 on 5.05 (myself included).
Sadly, there is not much talk around HN about console hacking. E.g. Here is the bounty submission of Andy Nguyen (theflow0) for 6.72: https://hackerone.com/reports/826026
Sony might have shot itself in the foot by accepting the disclosure at the end... But, then again, they had to and there's not much harm done when the jailbroken fw is a year old.
what's the advantage of a jail broken ps4? Other than running 3rd party Linux binaries, and maybe adding ad-blockers, is there a gaming benefit?
Running linux, ps4 is based on FreeBSD
Piracy, I assume?
Running homebrew, although I don't know if there's much of a homebrew scene for the ps4.
Also you can get a second hand ps4 pretty cheap nowadays relative to it's hardware and power consumption - could make a decent home server if you chucked some variety of linux on there (is there much support for the hardware?)
Also you can get a second hand ps4 pretty cheap nowadays relative to it's hardware and power consumption - could make a decent home server if you chucked some variety of linux on there (is there much support for the hardware?)
PS4 is basically a PC at this point one of the main reasons for why no homebrew scene.
Check out the Switch or PS3 scenes for some examples: save backups and save editing, game mods, overclocking, normally unsupported game controllers.
The Switch is a good example - afaik there's still no official way to back up saves for a lot of games (botw included), and for the ones where cloud saves are supported it's still a monthly subscription. Your console dies, you lose your saves, no way around it other than jailbreaking.
Additionally cloud saves are not supported on some games, including single-player first-party games, and Nintendo's excuse for that is because "cheating."
Animal Crossing and all four (technically two but you know) Pokemon games have no cloud save support at all, arguably all games for which players would absolutely want cloud saves. On top of this is a pretty long list of third-party titles.
Animal Crossing and all four (technically two but you know) Pokemon games have no cloud save support at all, arguably all games for which players would absolutely want cloud saves. On top of this is a pretty long list of third-party titles.
The Switch hacking scene is also a good example just because of the sheer amount of effort poured into it - Atmosphere, the primary custom-firmware solution, is aiming to be a _full reimplementation_ of the Switch's firmware, kernel and all.
https://github.com/Atmosphere-NX/Atmosphere/
https://old.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/hygtnx/mesospher...
---
(also, one more particularly cool application made possible through homebrew is game streaming - from a desktop pc or other device.)
https://github.com/rock88/moonlight-nx
https://github.com/Atmosphere-NX/Atmosphere/
https://old.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/hygtnx/mesospher...
---
(also, one more particularly cool application made possible through homebrew is game streaming - from a desktop pc or other device.)
https://github.com/rock88/moonlight-nx
Maybe it's just me not being a college student with a very constrained budget anymore, but is using cracked games still a thing nowadays? My impression was that it was very widespread until the mid/late 2000s because it was the most convenient way to get a game (ie without going into a physical store or mail ordering games). This should be alleviated by steam/stadia/etc nowadays, right?
Still a big scene. Maybe bigger (absolute terms, not percentage) because gaming is such a huge market now. For the big games like RDR2 or the newer Assassin's Creeds, the DRM probably paid back way more than it cost.
I'm generally curious about this too.
Cracking got harder and licensed distribution in the 2010s became as convenient and consumer friendly as it unlicensed distribution was for pirates in the early 2000s.
Region locked games started disappearing, coinciding with less physical media needs to begin with.
Flagship titles started being released cross region simultaneously.
Downloads and streaming was available and fast.
The marketplaces and discovery gradually got better too, still limited here but not better than what the marketplaces distributing unlicensed content have.
There is also the part about the budget, but I'm not sure. Expense was a factor, but I'm not sure how big of a factor. The things people do on Steam and other marketplaces is similar to what pirates were doing: downloading a ton of games for free because they could, but only playing the flagship games and never touching the other ones. So the pirates-turned-consumers are still only buying a handful of games, and now also have access to the promotions and plethora of free stuff as the always-consumers.
Cracking got harder and licensed distribution in the 2010s became as convenient and consumer friendly as it unlicensed distribution was for pirates in the early 2000s.
Region locked games started disappearing, coinciding with less physical media needs to begin with.
Flagship titles started being released cross region simultaneously.
Downloads and streaming was available and fast.
The marketplaces and discovery gradually got better too, still limited here but not better than what the marketplaces distributing unlicensed content have.
There is also the part about the budget, but I'm not sure. Expense was a factor, but I'm not sure how big of a factor. The things people do on Steam and other marketplaces is similar to what pirates were doing: downloading a ton of games for free because they could, but only playing the flagship games and never touching the other ones. So the pirates-turned-consumers are still only buying a handful of games, and now also have access to the promotions and plethora of free stuff as the always-consumers.
I know a guy, makes minimum wage, poor as shit. Known him a long time, but for how poor he his, he is rich in games. He doesn’t even pay for IAP on his phone, somehow he gets that free. It’s always hilarious when he messages me: “hey, have you played X yet?” And my response is, “no.” He sends me the torrent. I just pay for the games, because I can afford it and I know if he says it’s good, I’ll probably enjoy it.
I imagine there are other people like me, where the pirating actually drives sales. But yeah, to the people who don’t make tons of money, it’s often the only way they’ll ever play the game.
I imagine there are other people like me, where the pirating actually drives sales. But yeah, to the people who don’t make tons of money, it’s often the only way they’ll ever play the game.
Yes, I was factoring that in but I dont think its that big of a factor, when I was in the scene pirates were estimates to being 1-2% of players. So even thinking about how pirates are advertisements for the game, I’m skeptical of their impact. From what I can tell, technical literacy has gone down in Gen Z.
I have seen some youtube game reviewers openly admit that they acquired some of their games through piracy.
In the past I have cracked the games I bought because they needed windows live or some such bullshit to play an offline only game.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of piracy through lack of money. I mean, it's not really a lost sale, and it could generate a repeat paying customer later. Especially as you get out of your teens/early 20's and tend to have more disposable income, and price is the easier barrier to leap than sketchy torrents and cracks.
there is a substantially larger gaming market now, especially in the global south where $60 means a lot more
> is using cracked games still a thing nowadays?
Some friends still run the odd cracked game/app. A couple decades ago I didn't discourage it, but nowadays I advise that the hacking scene is filled with seriously malicious actors and protection via anti-rootkit/virus apps is pretty weak.
Some friends still run the odd cracked game/app. A couple decades ago I didn't discourage it, but nowadays I advise that the hacking scene is filled with seriously malicious actors and protection via anti-rootkit/virus apps is pretty weak.
Regardless of if using cracked games is still thing, the practice of cracking games will persist. Those who crack games do it for the technical challenge, without deriving any financial benefit from it.
Two things:
1. Once someone overcomes the upfront information barrier to piracy continued piracy has barely a convenience differential from using official channels. The user going to the steam page to enter their credit card and buy the game is doing as much work as the insider pirate knowing the right trackers to source a cracked version from that often comes with its own one click installer. Especially when official releases encumber the game in DRM that often breaks it for some fraction of legitimate buyers.
2. Games are still, if not region locked, regionally released. You still often cannot get AAA titles within months of publication at any price in many countries and if you can they often cost more than a whole days pay. There is a market to play the latest titles when you have no practical access to them where you live.
1. Once someone overcomes the upfront information barrier to piracy continued piracy has barely a convenience differential from using official channels. The user going to the steam page to enter their credit card and buy the game is doing as much work as the insider pirate knowing the right trackers to source a cracked version from that often comes with its own one click installer. Especially when official releases encumber the game in DRM that often breaks it for some fraction of legitimate buyers.
2. Games are still, if not region locked, regionally released. You still often cannot get AAA titles within months of publication at any price in many countries and if you can they often cost more than a whole days pay. There is a market to play the latest titles when you have no practical access to them where you live.
Also trying to find something, as layman looking for pirated stuff, you will stumble upon with a lot of fake executables filling the os with garbage, fake surveys promising the file, and off course porn. Always thought that burdensome journey to find stuff was very convenient fighting against crackers, not that crackers had to make it this way.
Not everyone lives in 1st world countries. $60 is more than a monthly salary in many countries - for such reasons, I think DRM should be inconvenient enough so that 1st world won't bother, i.e. buy the game, but it shouldn't be very hard so kids in Africa can also enjoy the game.
[deleted]
It's worth keeping in mind that cracking DRM is pretty much universally criminally illegal these days.
In the past (admittedly a long time ago now) you would have just been butting up against the game's terms of service / shrink-wrap license.
Since the WIPO Copyright Treaty has been ratified in local law almost world-wide, no-one with even a semblance of professionalism would even attempt to crack DRM. So it's not like the world's best security consultants have been working on this non-stop for the last year.
EDIT: Just to clarify, security firms may of course be hired/green-lit by the DRM's implementer to try break the software. However, DRM is not open season for white-hat security engineers like a lot of other areas are.
In the past (admittedly a long time ago now) you would have just been butting up against the game's terms of service / shrink-wrap license.
Since the WIPO Copyright Treaty has been ratified in local law almost world-wide, no-one with even a semblance of professionalism would even attempt to crack DRM. So it's not like the world's best security consultants have been working on this non-stop for the last year.
EDIT: Just to clarify, security firms may of course be hired/green-lit by the DRM's implementer to try break the software. However, DRM is not open season for white-hat security engineers like a lot of other areas are.
Are you telling me it's illegal to reverse engineer [DRM] software that I paid for and installed on my PC?
That's like making it illegal to open the bonnet of my car and take the engine apart.
Or are you saying it's illegal to build a crack using my private computer?
Or are you just saying it's illegal to publish that crack?
That's like making it illegal to open the bonnet of my car and take the engine apart.
Or are you saying it's illegal to build a crack using my private computer?
Or are you just saying it's illegal to publish that crack?
Criminally illegal.
[deleted]
From a legal risk POV, yes, assuming US-based. It is not fair use at all, either.
CFAA and DMCA are quite nasty in this regard. It gets significantly worse if, in the course of your inspection/EULA violation/whatever, you have to interact with any third party DRM [online] services for authn/authz. Then you bring even more crime into scope.
Ianal, but I'm fairly certain the answer is 'yes' to every single question, even individually (the act of cracking and the act of publishing it might even be two separate crimes)
EFF: > The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. 1201, prohibit circumvention of “technological protection measures” that effectively control access to copyrighted works. The law also prohibits trafficking in tools that are primarily designed for circumvention, have only limited commercially significant purpose other than circumvention or are marketed for circumvention. While section 1201 can arguably apply to any security researcher, those studying digital rights management (DRM) of music, movies or other creative content are most likely to face section 1201 claims, since Congress intended to protect these copyrighted works when it passed the statute. Researchers looking for vulnerabilities in authentication handshakes, code signing, code obfuscation, and protocol encryption also have to worry about section 1201 because vendors have argued that these also qualify as “technical protection measures” covered by the DMCA.
CFAA and DMCA are quite nasty in this regard. It gets significantly worse if, in the course of your inspection/EULA violation/whatever, you have to interact with any third party DRM [online] services for authn/authz. Then you bring even more crime into scope.
Ianal, but I'm fairly certain the answer is 'yes' to every single question, even individually (the act of cracking and the act of publishing it might even be two separate crimes)
EFF: > The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. 1201, prohibit circumvention of “technological protection measures” that effectively control access to copyrighted works. The law also prohibits trafficking in tools that are primarily designed for circumvention, have only limited commercially significant purpose other than circumvention or are marketed for circumvention. While section 1201 can arguably apply to any security researcher, those studying digital rights management (DRM) of music, movies or other creative content are most likely to face section 1201 claims, since Congress intended to protect these copyrighted works when it passed the statute. Researchers looking for vulnerabilities in authentication handshakes, code signing, code obfuscation, and protocol encryption also have to worry about section 1201 because vendors have argued that these also qualify as “technical protection measures” covered by the DMCA.
Right so how could they possibly define/prove/enforce it, since reverse engineering is essentially the act of understanding how something works by looking at it.
There are examples of this specific provision of the DMCA being enforced (or at the very least being used to threaten into submission) on EFF's website. Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian national, was even arrested and sent to jail in the US:
https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-ye...
EDIT: Probably worth noting Dmitry Sklyarov was released from jail after testifying at the trial of his employer, who were themselves then found not guilty of violating the DMCA.
https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-ye...
EDIT: Probably worth noting Dmitry Sklyarov was released from jail after testifying at the trial of his employer, who were themselves then found not guilty of violating the DMCA.
> It is not fair use at all, either.
Fair use is a copyright term, so let's be more specific: Even when you're cracking DRM to enable copyright fair use, the act of cracking will typically be illegal.
Fair use is a copyright term, so let's be more specific: Even when you're cracking DRM to enable copyright fair use, the act of cracking will typically be illegal.
Although there has been a concerted effort to spreaf FUD around "Digital Rights Management" and "Intellectual Property", these things are not, generally speaking, concepts that are found in criminal law.
In most (all?) jurisdictions copyright infringement is a civil matter, and there is pretty robust legislation that protects "fair use" and the "right to repair".
Modifying (Removing DRM on) a piece of software that you yourself have bought is perfectly legal. Furthermore, its also legal to tell other people how to do it.
https://gizmodo.com/its-perfectly-legal-to-tell-people-how-t...
In most (all?) jurisdictions copyright infringement is a civil matter, and there is pretty robust legislation that protects "fair use" and the "right to repair".
Modifying (Removing DRM on) a piece of software that you yourself have bought is perfectly legal. Furthermore, its also legal to tell other people how to do it.
https://gizmodo.com/its-perfectly-legal-to-tell-people-how-t...
> In most (all?) jurisdictions copyright infringement is a civil matter
This is just absolutely 100% factually inaccurate. There are huge swaths of legislation specifically to spell out the fact that this is not the case. Please refer to the other sub-threads, particularly the information about arrests being made!
> Modifying (Removing DRM on) a piece of software that you yourself have bought is perfectly legal.
Not likely. At least not for any practical use cases.
The point of removing "rights management" would typically be to grant yourself rights that the copyright holder did not wish to grant you. IANAL, however if you were to remove DRM, but then continue to use the software in a manner that is in line with what the rights-holder intended, then you may be okay. Although, the laws themselves indicate that facilitating removal of DRM is in itself illegal, so I wouldn't count on it.
If you were to distribute any tooling, or even technical information about the removal of the DRM, then you're in clear violation. In fact, the stringency of these laws is how the case in the aforementioned Gizmodo article even came to be. Some rights-holders believed that simply mentioning the existence of DRM removal software was a violation of these laws. Fortunately, the courts ruled otherwise, but that's a far cry from publishing technical information explaining how to remove the DRM itself.
From the WIPO Copyright Treaty:
> Article 12 Obligations concerning Rights Management Information
(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention:
The WIPO Copyright Treaty has been implemented all around the globe. In the US these laws are largely incorporated as part of the DMCA. The DMCA has provisions for fair use and the right to repair exemptions. However, these exemptions aren't even part of the legislation. Instead, every three years the copyright office reviews the exemptions, adding, removing and extending exemptions as they see fit. What's legal in the US now, may not be in three years time.
Article 10 of WIPO Copyright Treaty allows "Contracting Parties" (signatories of the treaty) to incorporate certain exemptions in their legislation. However, it's not at all clear that this section even applies to Article 12. The US have provided exemptions, "because they can". Other countries around the globe are not so lucky.
Take Australia for example, the WIPO Copyright Treaty was simply implemented as amendments to Australia's Copyright Act in 2000. Australia has no exemptions, nor any special processes to introduce them.
This is just absolutely 100% factually inaccurate. There are huge swaths of legislation specifically to spell out the fact that this is not the case. Please refer to the other sub-threads, particularly the information about arrests being made!
> Modifying (Removing DRM on) a piece of software that you yourself have bought is perfectly legal.
Not likely. At least not for any practical use cases.
The point of removing "rights management" would typically be to grant yourself rights that the copyright holder did not wish to grant you. IANAL, however if you were to remove DRM, but then continue to use the software in a manner that is in line with what the rights-holder intended, then you may be okay. Although, the laws themselves indicate that facilitating removal of DRM is in itself illegal, so I wouldn't count on it.
If you were to distribute any tooling, or even technical information about the removal of the DRM, then you're in clear violation. In fact, the stringency of these laws is how the case in the aforementioned Gizmodo article even came to be. Some rights-holders believed that simply mentioning the existence of DRM removal software was a violation of these laws. Fortunately, the courts ruled otherwise, but that's a far cry from publishing technical information explaining how to remove the DRM itself.
From the WIPO Copyright Treaty:
> Article 12 Obligations concerning Rights Management Information
(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention:
(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority;
(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.
The WIPO Copyright Treaty has been implemented all around the globe. In the US these laws are largely incorporated as part of the DMCA. The DMCA has provisions for fair use and the right to repair exemptions. However, these exemptions aren't even part of the legislation. Instead, every three years the copyright office reviews the exemptions, adding, removing and extending exemptions as they see fit. What's legal in the US now, may not be in three years time.
Article 10 of WIPO Copyright Treaty allows "Contracting Parties" (signatories of the treaty) to incorporate certain exemptions in their legislation. However, it's not at all clear that this section even applies to Article 12. The US have provided exemptions, "because they can". Other countries around the globe are not so lucky.
Take Australia for example, the WIPO Copyright Treaty was simply implemented as amendments to Australia's Copyright Act in 2000. Australia has no exemptions, nor any special processes to introduce them.
> It's worth keeping in mind that cracking DRM is pretty much universally criminally illegal these days.
No, why? It isn't hard to avoid getting caught.
No, why? It isn't hard to avoid getting caught.
The game wouldn't even run for like the first 5 days because they required BIOS updates from manufacturers for the game to even work.
Does that mean the game is using the TPM or similar for its DRM?
I wouldn't associate the mess that was motherboard firmware around launch with anything but AMD. The firmware didn't even boost the CPU right either.
I have an Intel SKU and I couldn't launch the game for 2 months after release.
Because of BIOS issues?
I updated the BIOS and nothing changed. After a few months they fixed it.
It was due to needing a specific version of AGESA, which also has to do with security and was likely related to DRM, hence why the game wouldn't boot.
The game regularly crashed for me 4 months after release, to the point where I stopped playing it.
DRM obsessed developers: we need to spend time on this junk and punish our paying customers.
All other developers: we spend time on making better games and release them on GOG on day one.
All other developers: we spend time on making better games and release them on GOG on day one.
I think Rockstar is big enough to work on two things at the same time.
They are referring to the quality tradeoffs that must be made when adding DRM to a game.
It adds overhead at the very least, and many games, Triple As included, have had game breaking faults due to shoddy DRM implementations.
It adds overhead at the very least, and many games, Triple As included, have had game breaking faults due to shoddy DRM implementations.
Seems to have balanced out ok in RDR2.
Yeah, but in Rockstars other recent AAA title, GTA5, they had game breaking bugs due to it.
So they don’t exactly have a perfect track record
https://www.polygon.com/pc/2019/9/19/20874098/rockstar-games...
So they don’t exactly have a perfect track record
https://www.polygon.com/pc/2019/9/19/20874098/rockstar-games...
RDR2 is fairly poorly optimized but I'm not really taking these anecdotal "DRM makes games slow" comments too seriously until there's some proof. Games are almost never CPU bound so I just don't see how obfuscation is supposedly killing performance.
Here, I did the quick google search you could have done and found some data on DRM performance implications in real world games.
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/282924-denuvo-really-does...
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/282924-denuvo-really-does...
That's article only has data about the performance implication of a particular DRM product, not DRM in general.
The fact of using DRM is already an insult to their customers. Apparently they can afford insulting those who buy their games.
Which customers? I'm one, and I didn't even know it had DRM, much less feel insulted.
All customers. DRM treats those who buy their games as apriory potential criminals (that's the premise of DRM by its very definition as a preemptive policing). I find it insulting.
The general premise and intent of DRM was described well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
Those who don't find such kind of approach insulting can probably accept other methodologies of overreaching preemptive policing too.
The general premise and intent of DRM was described well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
Those who don't find such kind of approach insulting can probably accept other methodologies of overreaching preemptive policing too.
Are you insulted by any business that has video cameras? Metal detectors? Security personnel?
Are there any measures of protecting one's business from theft that you find acceptable?
To be honest I'm not a huge fan of DRM either but I don't believe it's automatically insulting for people to want to protect themselves from very real threats, even if there are some negative effects for the good samaritans. That's just the nature of the world we live in.
Are there any measures of protecting one's business from theft that you find acceptable?
To be honest I'm not a huge fan of DRM either but I don't believe it's automatically insulting for people to want to protect themselves from very real threats, even if there are some negative effects for the good samaritans. That's just the nature of the world we live in.
> Are you insulted by any business that has video cameras?
I'd surely be, if that business would have any business putting said cameras in my home, like DRM is deployed to police users on their computers and OS they are using - i.e. their private digital space.
That's the overreaching part in DRM being an overreaching preemptive policing. People get the concept of overstepping physical privacy for preemptive policing being unacceptable, so it's the same idea for the digital one.
I'd surely be, if that business would have any business putting said cameras in my home, like DRM is deployed to police users on their computers and OS they are using - i.e. their private digital space.
That's the overreaching part in DRM being an overreaching preemptive policing. People get the concept of overstepping physical privacy for preemptive policing being unacceptable, so it's the same idea for the digital one.
DRM has nothing to with policing.
If the DRM kicks in, the product might stop working.
If you get "policed", you might end up in jail by force.
If the DRM kicks in, the product might stop working.
If you get "policed", you might end up in jail by force.
Policing doesn't need to imply jail, it can mean any policy enforcement, such as: the enforcement of regulations or an agreement.
DRM is without a question a policing method, one that's preemptive and overreaching by its definition.
DRM is without a question a policing method, one that's preemptive and overreaching by its definition.
Are you insulted by online services that require you to enter a password? I'm not.
Anyway, if you're insulted by a game, don't play it.
Anyway, if you're insulted by a game, don't play it.
I think you are mixing up authentication with DRM. Authentication is a normal concept, for example for buying something you need to show that you are you, to associate your payment with your purchase.
DRM is restricting your usage after you already bought it by deploying some kind of malware in your system. It's overreaching preemptive policing.
DRM is restricting your usage after you already bought it by deploying some kind of malware in your system. It's overreaching preemptive policing.
Define "malware".
Authentication also applies for services you've paid for, even after you've paid for them.
And none of this has anything to do with police.
Authentication also applies for services you've paid for, even after you've paid for them.
And none of this has anything to do with police.
Something that's aimed against the user, hostile, malicious code (mal in malware). Since it treats you as an apriory threat, you should treat it as an apriory threat in return, so as a malware.
I can see the argument. It doesn't seem like any more difficult to argue that user authentication is also user-hostile, regardless of whose machine its running on.
It's "a priori" btw.
It's "a priori" btw.
Overreaching part is deploying some anti-user tools that enforce restrictions in your private digital space after you already paid for the product.
Authentication for the purchase itself is fine, it's not any different than you showing your face in a store when you pay, so the seller gives the product to you because it's you paying. I.e. it would be wrong for the seller to give it to someone else instead (unless you ask). That's what authentication is for.
But the seller from the store doesn't send an enforcer along, to make sure you are you even after you already left or to make sure you don't do something else with the product. And it would be even more weird, if that enforcer will accompany you home and will enforce whatever in your private space. And that's exactly what DRM is doing.
Authentication for the purchase itself is fine, it's not any different than you showing your face in a store when you pay, so the seller gives the product to you because it's you paying. I.e. it would be wrong for the seller to give it to someone else instead (unless you ask). That's what authentication is for.
But the seller from the store doesn't send an enforcer along, to make sure you are you even after you already left or to make sure you don't do something else with the product. And it would be even more weird, if that enforcer will accompany you home and will enforce whatever in your private space. And that's exactly what DRM is doing.
The farther you take these analogies with physical goods, the more stretched and strained they get. For example, there's not a lot of intellectual property restrictions on a roll of toilet paper. That's because almost all of the value of a roll of toilet paper is in the actual production of the physical thing.
On the other hand, software is essentially free (as in beer) to copy once it exists. So it makes sense that toilet paper doesn't have enforcers.
You say that authentication is ok because it's for the purpose of ensuring you paid. But that's also the purpose of DRM, which you say is not ok. So there must be more to the reason.
Personally, I don't think DRM is morally wrong in general. If there DRM I object to on a product, I won't buy that product.
On the other hand, software is essentially free (as in beer) to copy once it exists. So it makes sense that toilet paper doesn't have enforcers.
You say that authentication is ok because it's for the purpose of ensuring you paid. But that's also the purpose of DRM, which you say is not ok. So there must be more to the reason.
Personally, I don't think DRM is morally wrong in general. If there DRM I object to on a product, I won't buy that product.
With a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of engineers involved in RDR2, they can afford it.
There's some evidence that the DRM noticeably slows down the framerate of the game. Plus there's the bloat required to actually launch it (Rockstar Social Club)
The GTA V crack apparently trims away a lot of the fat and makes for a much less intrusive installation and a faster game (with better access to custom servers).
The GTA V crack apparently trims away a lot of the fat and makes for a much less intrusive installation and a faster game (with better access to custom servers).
The guard mechanism inserts non-optimal code as part of its obfuscation process. It does slow down the affected code. The amount depends on how the developers configured the tools and what paths are affected.
Ill never forget when I installed original copy of GTA V and needed to create three separate accounts for it. Ofcourse each account had different requirements for passwords, so I couldnt even use one login info for all of them.
Presumably this is simply a function of not cracking it within the 30,60,90-day critical window?
Sure, cracking it now would give you "street cred", but you probably gain more by cracking something newer and more popular.
Sure, cracking it now would give you "street cred", but you probably gain more by cracking something newer and more popular.
I'm pretty sure the only reason people crack games is for street cred, or at least for the technical challenge. Seems like "I cracked the game that noone else could for nearly a year" is a great reason to try to me.
This is normal now.
Most of the cracking groups have given up, because of Denuvo, they just crack small releases, the few people that were actually cracking Denuvo were not even the big scene groups, most likely individuals with certain skills, but at lot of them just disappeared as it became too hard/took too long to make it worth the time.
Most of the cracking groups have given up, because of Denuvo, they just crack small releases, the few people that were actually cracking Denuvo were not even the big scene groups, most likely individuals with certain skills, but at lot of them just disappeared as it became too hard/took too long to make it worth the time.
Is DRM so totally useless that this is a worthy thing of note?
RDR2 is one of the biggest of triple-As. It probably has more cracking effort applied to it than most.
I don't think that's evidence that DRM is useless.
I don't think that's evidence that DRM is useless.
Typically when making a copyrighted creative work your objective is to get paid for that work. Just preventing people that wouldn't pay for it anyway from enjoying that work is a lose-lose situation for both parties involved.
While this isn't evidence that DRM is useless, it also isn't evidence that it is useful. That evidence would come from sales numbers if they are significantly higher than another comparable work that wasn't DRM'ed as it would prove that the DRM is actually convincing people to pay for something they normally wouldn't.
Piracy is not just a "freeloader" problem. I've been to a few poorer countries where piracy is absolutely normal not because they don't want to pay per-se, but because they just don't have the means to do so or are prevented from doing so by technical or commercial reasons like lack of adequate payment infrastructure or region-locking; in which case you are still better off letting them enjoy the creative work for free and hope to gain the benefits in some other way (like them buying your future software when they can finally afford it, or producing good press and raising awareness around other people who can actually afford it). There's also the issue of people for who DRM actually causes problems and prevents them from enjoying work that they did actually pay for, though I personally don't see how the inconvenience of DRM is worse than the risk of running code from an untrusted, anonymous source that might be malicious).
While this isn't evidence that DRM is useless, it also isn't evidence that it is useful. That evidence would come from sales numbers if they are significantly higher than another comparable work that wasn't DRM'ed as it would prove that the DRM is actually convincing people to pay for something they normally wouldn't.
Piracy is not just a "freeloader" problem. I've been to a few poorer countries where piracy is absolutely normal not because they don't want to pay per-se, but because they just don't have the means to do so or are prevented from doing so by technical or commercial reasons like lack of adequate payment infrastructure or region-locking; in which case you are still better off letting them enjoy the creative work for free and hope to gain the benefits in some other way (like them buying your future software when they can finally afford it, or producing good press and raising awareness around other people who can actually afford it). There's also the issue of people for who DRM actually causes problems and prevents them from enjoying work that they did actually pay for, though I personally don't see how the inconvenience of DRM is worse than the risk of running code from an untrusted, anonymous source that might be malicious).
We can compare sales number of RDR2 with witcher 3, a game that came out 3 years before RDR2 and without DRM. Given a growing market, and the assumption that both games are equally attractive for buyers, RDR2 should at minimum have a small increased number compared to witcher 3.
Witcher 3 sold about 30 millions copies over the first 2 years. RDR2 sold 32 millions over the first 2 years.
Witcher 3 sold about 30 millions copies over the first 2 years. RDR2 sold 32 millions over the first 2 years.
This comparison is invalid. They are two different games with overlapping but not identical fan bases. There are significant demographic, marketing, and competitive differences between the two releases. You really can't draw any conclusions about drm, positive or negative, from the relative sales figures.
Eh, hard to say: Witcher 3 was a breakout hit with a (relatively) niche audience for prior games. It's prior games were also available DRM free.
RDR2 was both highly anticipated and had a massive marketing budget.
I think your idea is sound, but I just don't know if these are really comparable game launches. Counter-factuals are also very hard to prove. how do we know that Witcher 3 wouldn't have generated more revenue if it wasn't easy to share your copy?
RDR2 was both highly anticipated and had a massive marketing budget.
I think your idea is sound, but I just don't know if these are really comparable game launches. Counter-factuals are also very hard to prove. how do we know that Witcher 3 wouldn't have generated more revenue if it wasn't easy to share your copy?
Game publishers have that data, very precise data iirc.
It was a long time ago but I recall one of the smaller publishers did a long blog post on this topic. They showed sales graphs for one of their games. The graph showed a big spike in the first few days followed by a slow decline. It also showed huge chunks missing (drop followed by an identical sized increase a few weeks later). Those chunks were when cracks came out and the increase was when the cracks were broken by multi-player patching. It's simple enough maths to calculate the area of the graph that was missing - that's your lost sales.
Apps use DRM because most pirates will in fact buy the game if they can't crack it. They are big into gaming, they want to play the newest games NOW when they are fresh and their friends are talking about it, and they want to play online with others. So as long as cost of DRM < cost of lost sales, games will use it. As DRM has been a feature of gaming for as long as there have been video games, it always baffles me how many people on forums like HN seem to believe only irrational developers would use it.
It was a long time ago but I recall one of the smaller publishers did a long blog post on this topic. They showed sales graphs for one of their games. The graph showed a big spike in the first few days followed by a slow decline. It also showed huge chunks missing (drop followed by an identical sized increase a few weeks later). Those chunks were when cracks came out and the increase was when the cracks were broken by multi-player patching. It's simple enough maths to calculate the area of the graph that was missing - that's your lost sales.
Apps use DRM because most pirates will in fact buy the game if they can't crack it. They are big into gaming, they want to play the newest games NOW when they are fresh and their friends are talking about it, and they want to play online with others. So as long as cost of DRM < cost of lost sales, games will use it. As DRM has been a feature of gaming for as long as there have been video games, it always baffles me how many people on forums like HN seem to believe only irrational developers would use it.
This isn't evidence that DRM is useless. Quite the contrary, it's evidence that DRM can yield resounding successes.
What a lot of people don't understand is that DRM has fulfilled its purpose if unauthorized copies are staved off for a few months. Sales usually follow and exponential decay. While some titles experience unprecedented popularity later in life, most games have the overwhelming majority of sales in their first few months after release. It's unclear exactly how piracy affects sales, but assuming that some percentage of potential buyers would pirate instead of buy if illicit copies are available DRM that only delays cracking for a few months captures most of these otherwise lost sales. Phrased from the opposite perspective, most people who would wait several months after release to pirate probably wouldn't have bought the game even if it went un-cracked forever.
Again, the standard for "successful" DRM is on the order of several months. RDR2 going uncracked for close to a year is not just successful, but a resounding success.
What a lot of people don't understand is that DRM has fulfilled its purpose if unauthorized copies are staved off for a few months. Sales usually follow and exponential decay. While some titles experience unprecedented popularity later in life, most games have the overwhelming majority of sales in their first few months after release. It's unclear exactly how piracy affects sales, but assuming that some percentage of potential buyers would pirate instead of buy if illicit copies are available DRM that only delays cracking for a few months captures most of these otherwise lost sales. Phrased from the opposite perspective, most people who would wait several months after release to pirate probably wouldn't have bought the game even if it went un-cracked forever.
Again, the standard for "successful" DRM is on the order of several months. RDR2 going uncracked for close to a year is not just successful, but a resounding success.
If no other DRM has withstood for 300+ days before being cracked, then it seems pretty useless. Yay, it worked for one title. I think we can all agree CSS was pretty useless. This stat makes it sound like AAA game DRM is about as easy to crack. At least it's not as bad as the master key leaking for Blu-ray.
It is possible it is useless, but if so it is surprising that so many stakeholders continue to invest in it. I don't know what the facts are but it is certainly plausible to me that DRM that only holds out for one month still pays for itself. It seems that the prior assumption should be that there is a good reason for the presence of an expensive and reviled feature. The only one I can think of for DRM is that it is useful, chiefly by driving increased sales due to fractional conversion of pirates.
> If no other DRM has withstood for 300+ days before being cracked, then it seems pretty useless.
Based on what?
I'll wager that if a DRM is un-cracked for just 15 days it's already worth it. For most video games, the first few weeks after release are where a huge proportion of the sales are done because no one wants to wait to play an hyped game. If you can keep the game uncracked for those 2 weeks then a lot of people that might have downloaded the cracked game will just buy it because they don't want to wait.
Based on what?
I'll wager that if a DRM is un-cracked for just 15 days it's already worth it. For most video games, the first few weeks after release are where a huge proportion of the sales are done because no one wants to wait to play an hyped game. If you can keep the game uncracked for those 2 weeks then a lot of people that might have downloaded the cracked game will just buy it because they don't want to wait.
You do realize whoever wrote the spec for this DRM now has free advertising to be hired for more projects and make bank. If Rockstar did it in house, I'm pretty sure they're going to make a spinoff DRM company. Useless, stupid, whatever you want to call it, they're going to print fun-coupons now.
DRM is and always will be a cat&mouse game. The hacker that breaks this DRM will also get level up bonus for their resume. At that point, this theoretical business model you propose will no longer be such a valuable thing. Those fun-coupons will be as valuable as the Chuck E Cheese tickets recently discussed
DRM that takes 1 year to crack is about as good as you can want. What percent of total sales takes place in the first year. If your proposed hacker finds the solution to this one, does that mean they have the general solution? Or does that indicate that this style of DRM in general takes 1 year to crack and is generally valuable?
I know in the indie game field, ~95% of lifetime sales happen in the first year. But to be fair, they typically don't have the similar marketing power as a AAA. I'd venture 60% (gut/instinct). There must be a good reason for running sales even in the long term. That could also be skewed when you think of in-game purchases too. Cheaper year 2 or 3 purchases could be pushed for if they're banking on in-game purchases.
Either way, pretty sure someone broke open an expensive bottle of champagne for a 1 year mark.
Either way, pretty sure someone broke open an expensive bottle of champagne for a 1 year mark.
Your argument can easily apply to locks, safes and general physical security. It will always be done. I've been hearing "DRM is will be useless soon" since the early 2000s. Many DRM companies are 10-30+ years old, with multiple international locations and many, many employees.
Look, I appreciate the hobby and skills it takes to crack DRM as a logic puzzle. I used to work security integration and I may have had my own similar hobbies. But at the end of the day, the argument of "DRM is useless" is people truly saying, "I don't want to pay for things". Who likes to work for free? I don't and I'm sure as shit you won't work for free either.
Do I like Rockstar? No. I think their games are shit from beginning to end. They're edgelord, teenage wish fulfillment trash.
Do I respect when someone spends their time and wishes to get paid for it so they can continue their craft with a roof over their head and food on the table for them and their families? Yes.
If you don't approve of mandatory crunch times, story lines or whatever anti-capitalist, anarchist, whatever manifesto you subscribe to... don't buy or play their stuff. Fun part about a capitalist system, the best way to hurt someone is to both ignore them and don't buy their stuff. Pirating their stuff, as a lot of folks like to mention, "Doesn't hurt the company". But it does give them reason to be more aggressive, issue lawsuits, get more press attention and generally be bigger assholes that spiral the system out of control. If they can make a profit, you bet your sweet ass they'll figure it out even if it's a long con.
So yea, wait for DRM to go bye-bye. Let's see, RDR2 was in dev for around 7 years. You go ahead and work, for someone else, for 7 years on something, about 40 hours a weeks (more if you want to include the "controversial working conditions") and don't get paid during that entire time. Not on something YOU want to do. Something that someone else wants done for them. Do that, then come back to me with a real argument for people not to get paid for their work. We're not a society that runs off hugs and kisses.
Look, I appreciate the hobby and skills it takes to crack DRM as a logic puzzle. I used to work security integration and I may have had my own similar hobbies. But at the end of the day, the argument of "DRM is useless" is people truly saying, "I don't want to pay for things". Who likes to work for free? I don't and I'm sure as shit you won't work for free either.
Do I like Rockstar? No. I think their games are shit from beginning to end. They're edgelord, teenage wish fulfillment trash.
Do I respect when someone spends their time and wishes to get paid for it so they can continue their craft with a roof over their head and food on the table for them and their families? Yes.
If you don't approve of mandatory crunch times, story lines or whatever anti-capitalist, anarchist, whatever manifesto you subscribe to... don't buy or play their stuff. Fun part about a capitalist system, the best way to hurt someone is to both ignore them and don't buy their stuff. Pirating their stuff, as a lot of folks like to mention, "Doesn't hurt the company". But it does give them reason to be more aggressive, issue lawsuits, get more press attention and generally be bigger assholes that spiral the system out of control. If they can make a profit, you bet your sweet ass they'll figure it out even if it's a long con.
So yea, wait for DRM to go bye-bye. Let's see, RDR2 was in dev for around 7 years. You go ahead and work, for someone else, for 7 years on something, about 40 hours a weeks (more if you want to include the "controversial working conditions") and don't get paid during that entire time. Not on something YOU want to do. Something that someone else wants done for them. Do that, then come back to me with a real argument for people not to get paid for their work. We're not a society that runs off hugs and kisses.
> But at the end of the day, the argument of "DRM is useless" is people truly saying, "I don't want to pay for things".
This is false.
A lot of people oppose DRM because it's a nasty bit of software running on your hardware, or because it's unwieldy or plain doesn't work. Some people buy a game (or ebook, or whatever) then use a DRM-stripped version because it's better.
And yes, some people play pirated games because they don't want to pay. But don't make it sound as if that was everyone.
DRM sucks.
This is false.
A lot of people oppose DRM because it's a nasty bit of software running on your hardware, or because it's unwieldy or plain doesn't work. Some people buy a game (or ebook, or whatever) then use a DRM-stripped version because it's better.
And yes, some people play pirated games because they don't want to pay. But don't make it sound as if that was everyone.
DRM sucks.
>A lot of people oppose DRM
So according to you, how many is a lot ?
So according to you, how many is a lot ?
Dude, that's the biggest load of crap and you know it. That's what everyone tells themselves so they sleep better at night and seem like some self-righteous Robin Hoods to the public.
You pirate because you don't want to pay for it. People don't buy something, then go out of their way to potentially get a bit of illegal virus/malware induced "DRM-Free version". I was a teen back during Napster and Limewire days... goddamn it I'm old... You pirate because you don't want to pay for it. Stop acting like it's some great public service, saving the world, doing-the-right-thing cause.
The folks that do the actual cracking, again, I actually respect for the skills. That kind of stuff is a real fun hobby. They share their work as a way to showoff. However, it's the users that get free-rides who I think are just ridiculous and delusional. "Oh, I pirate games as a political statement for anti-DRM because DRM is soooooo much worse on machines, and, and capitalism bad." Yea... okay. Everything I have is DRM-filth and I never noticed.
You pirate because you don't want to pay for it. People don't buy something, then go out of their way to potentially get a bit of illegal virus/malware induced "DRM-Free version". I was a teen back during Napster and Limewire days... goddamn it I'm old... You pirate because you don't want to pay for it. Stop acting like it's some great public service, saving the world, doing-the-right-thing cause.
The folks that do the actual cracking, again, I actually respect for the skills. That kind of stuff is a real fun hobby. They share their work as a way to showoff. However, it's the users that get free-rides who I think are just ridiculous and delusional. "Oh, I pirate games as a political statement for anti-DRM because DRM is soooooo much worse on machines, and, and capitalism bad." Yea... okay. Everything I have is DRM-filth and I never noticed.
Anecdotally I own both a legal and a cracked copy of GTAV.
The legal copy was nice in the first year the game came out and I wanted access to all features, so I grimaced and put up with the bloatware required to actually log in to the game and play it. Then I got bored, uninstalled it and didn't play it for a few years.
Recently I got a hankering to play it once more and shuddered at the memory of all the intrusive software bloat, as well as the toxic online community centrer around aggressive play. So I went with the crack (hassle-free and self-contained in a single directory) and joined a FiveM online server for multiplayer play, and the experience was painless, enjoyable even.
The legal copy was nice in the first year the game came out and I wanted access to all features, so I grimaced and put up with the bloatware required to actually log in to the game and play it. Then I got bored, uninstalled it and didn't play it for a few years.
Recently I got a hankering to play it once more and shuddered at the memory of all the intrusive software bloat, as well as the toxic online community centrer around aggressive play. So I went with the crack (hassle-free and self-contained in a single directory) and joined a FiveM online server for multiplayer play, and the experience was painless, enjoyable even.
I don't really know what to tell you except you're wrong. People do what I claimed all the time, you just ignore it happens.
> You pirate because you don't want to pay for it.
I don't pirate games.
> Oh, I pirate games as a political statement for anti-DRM because DRM is soooooo much worse on machines, and, and capitalism bad.
Nice strawman there. Please try arguing about what was actually said, instead of trying to start a flame war. Thanks.
> You pirate because you don't want to pay for it.
I don't pirate games.
> Oh, I pirate games as a political statement for anti-DRM because DRM is soooooo much worse on machines, and, and capitalism bad.
Nice strawman there. Please try arguing about what was actually said, instead of trying to start a flame war. Thanks.
[deleted]
If DRM lasts a week then it will have done it's job. The people willing to wait longer than that are probably never going to pay for the game regardless, so it doesn’t matter if they pirate it.
I don't know your social circle, but I have a lot of friends that will wait a year or two for titles to go on Steam sales for 40%+ off launch day pricing. You're oversimplifying the revenue model of AAA games.
Red Dead Redemption has sold 32 Million Copies to date.[1]
10 Million of these were in the first three days of release.[2]
17 Million were in the first 12 days of release.
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-08-03-take-two-c...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/02/putting-red-dead-rede...
10 Million of these were in the first three days of release.[2]
17 Million were in the first 12 days of release.
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-08-03-take-two-c...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/02/putting-red-dead-rede...
You're assuming the people who buy it in the first two weeks are the same people as the people who pirate it.
When the people who pirate it are mostly the people who can't afford to pay for it, they weren't going to buy it under any circumstances and how long it takes to break the DRM only determines how long they have to wait before they pirate it.
When the people who pirate it are mostly the people who can't afford to pay for it, they weren't going to buy it under any circumstances and how long it takes to break the DRM only determines how long they have to wait before they pirate it.
Im not making any assumptions about that.
The parent implied that that AAA revenue models didn’t have most sales up front (or at least that’s how I read it).
I have no clue if most pirates could afford it or not
The parent implied that that AAA revenue models didn’t have most sales up front (or at least that’s how I read it).
I have no clue if most pirates could afford it or not
The point is that we're not talking about the up front sales, because those are the people who can afford it, not the people who pirate it because they can't.
They eventually mark the games down by 40+% because they know there are people who don't buy them because they can't afford them. They're after the people who would be pirates (or just not have the game at all) at the original price, and they do it because those people exist.
But the DRM can't do anything about those sales when it's broken by the time the price is reduced, and it can't do anything about the people who pirate the game because they can't afford even that price.
They eventually mark the games down by 40+% because they know there are people who don't buy them because they can't afford them. They're after the people who would be pirates (or just not have the game at all) at the original price, and they do it because those people exist.
But the DRM can't do anything about those sales when it's broken by the time the price is reduced, and it can't do anything about the people who pirate the game because they can't afford even that price.
I guess I'm not sure if we in disagreement or not, or which part of what I said you are objecting to.
If you are only saying that some pirates would never buy the game, or that DRM also saves money later in the game lifecycle, I totally agree.
If you are claiming that all or most pirates cant afford the game, or that people who afford it wouldn't download a crack instead, I disagree.
My position is that DRM save companies a tremendous amount of money, mostly in the post release period, but also later. I think that many, people who bought the game would pirate instead if the crack existed and was easily accessible. I am saying that most sales occur early in the lifestyle when DRM is generally more effective. Do you agree?
>DRM can't do anything about those sales when it's broken by the time the price is reduced, and it can't do anything about the people who pirate the game because they can't afford even that price.
I agree that DRM cant make a broke person buy the game or stop a dedicated pirate after it is cracked.
If you are only saying that some pirates would never buy the game, or that DRM also saves money later in the game lifecycle, I totally agree.
If you are claiming that all or most pirates cant afford the game, or that people who afford it wouldn't download a crack instead, I disagree.
My position is that DRM save companies a tremendous amount of money, mostly in the post release period, but also later. I think that many, people who bought the game would pirate instead if the crack existed and was easily accessible. I am saying that most sales occur early in the lifestyle when DRM is generally more effective. Do you agree?
>DRM can't do anything about those sales when it's broken by the time the price is reduced, and it can't do anything about the people who pirate the game because they can't afford even that price.
I agree that DRM cant make a broke person buy the game or stop a dedicated pirate after it is cracked.
> If you are claiming that all or most pirates cant afford the game, or that people who afford it wouldn't download a crack instead, I disagree.
Then this is what we're disagreeing about, because most people who can afford the game have no reason to deal with the trouble of pirating it.
This isn't to say that if a crack is available immediately there won't be a ton of pirates. They're just mostly not the same people who were paying. In many cases it goes the other way: Someone doesn't know if the game is worth it, so they wouldn't have bought it but they would pirate it to try it out, and then after they figure out they like it, they buy it (e.g. so they can play multiplayer). Especially when the version they buy isn't less convenient than the version they pirate.
Then this is what we're disagreeing about, because most people who can afford the game have no reason to deal with the trouble of pirating it.
This isn't to say that if a crack is available immediately there won't be a ton of pirates. They're just mostly not the same people who were paying. In many cases it goes the other way: Someone doesn't know if the game is worth it, so they wouldn't have bought it but they would pirate it to try it out, and then after they figure out they like it, they buy it (e.g. so they can play multiplayer). Especially when the version they buy isn't less convenient than the version they pirate.
Thanks for clarifying. It would be interesting to know what portion of pirates cant afford the game and what the conversion rate is.
I suspect we each have our own anecdotal experience and there isn't clear data one way or another. For example, I have known probably two dozen pirates and every single one of them could afford the games but were just frugal. Probably half would have bought the game at if it was the only option, and half the games would not be bought at any price. Perhaps 1/20 somehow led to a conversion for disabled functionality.
I have never once met someone who bought a game after having installed a fully functional crack.
Also, part of the point of DRM is to make it more complicated to pirate and instal a game, even if the crack is available.
I suspect we each have our own anecdotal experience and there isn't clear data one way or another. For example, I have known probably two dozen pirates and every single one of them could afford the games but were just frugal. Probably half would have bought the game at if it was the only option, and half the games would not be bought at any price. Perhaps 1/20 somehow led to a conversion for disabled functionality.
I have never once met someone who bought a game after having installed a fully functional crack.
Also, part of the point of DRM is to make it more complicated to pirate and instal a game, even if the crack is available.
No. Just not exclusively up front. Your data says something like 50% of sales are not up front.
Sure, I would agree that it is not exclusive.
The people who wait a year to buy a game with 40% off launch day pricing make no where near the majority of revenue for publishers.
Most of the revenue for a single player game, like RDR, is made in the first couple weeks and tapers off. By the next year the sister studio is releasing the sequel to the game.
Most of the revenue for a single player game, like RDR, is made in the first couple weeks and tapers off. By the next year the sister studio is releasing the sequel to the game.
RDR2 has an online mode with micro transactions. They'll be aiming to milk it for years like they have with GTA5.
Is the behavior of those friends at all affected by DRM? If not, then they're not the targets.
[deleted]
> If no other DRM has withstood for 300+ days before being cracked, then it seems pretty useless.
The conditional part of your condition fails. I don't know if it's trustworthy, but crackwatch.com shows many games with no crack 1000+ days after release.
The conditional part of your condition fails. I don't know if it's trustworthy, but crackwatch.com shows many games with no crack 1000+ days after release.
Do they have any way of measuring the volume of effort at attempting to crack it?
Broadly, yes.
I think it's noteworthy now, but it'll be commonplace once we're completely locked out of our own hardware.
Even crappy DRM is useful though. As long as it thwarts casual copying, the only way to pirate a game is to get it off the internet which means trusting someone you've never met. The risk of malware / ransomware in that scenario is high enough for the combination to act as a reasonable deterrent IMO.
Even crappy DRM is useful though. As long as it thwarts casual copying, the only way to pirate a game is to get it off the internet which means trusting someone you've never met. The risk of malware / ransomware in that scenario is high enough for the combination to act as a reasonable deterrent IMO.
Yes, game DRM is usually cracked within a week or so. Sometimes it's cracked on release(doom eternal) when the cracking groups get an advanced copy.
[deleted]
Maybe just a sign you can’t even give RDR2 away for free ;)
Well yeah, it's not going to be cracked.
Good for them!
"Red Dead Redemption uses some obfuscation written by the same folks that sold previous obfuscation as 'Arxan'. The HWID-bound license probably plugs into the DRM such that it enables continued execution of the game code. This has become a feature of complex DRM."
"It also has a lot of custom checks that Rockstar wrote."
"That's it. There's no grand mystery, it's a classically challenging problem using new ways of writing frustrating-to-reverse bullshit."
src: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/h0j17y/red_dead_red...