Hitman 2's Denuvo DRM Cracked Days Before the Game's Release (arstechnica.com) 111
thegarbz writes: Denuvo, the darling of the DRM industry was once considered by publishers to be the final solution to piracy. Slashdot has documented the slow decline of Denuvo from stories in 2014, and 2016 where publishers were praising Denuvo's success at mitigating piracy for weeks, to its slow decline last year where games were being cracked within "hours" of release. The popular wisdom of publishers in the past considered DRM worth while as it thwarts piracy during the critical sales spike when games are first released. Last week saw Hitman 2, the latest Denuvo protected game get cracked in a short time. The kicker, the game isn't officially released until this Thursday.
Publishers are now eroding the potential sale day advantage of DRM through the latest practice of offering games for early release in an attempt to secure an ever larger number of pre-orders for popular titles. This leads to the obvious question: Does DRM make financial sense to include in titles if they risk being cracked before release date? Conversely, does releasing games early to selected customers make financial sense if it results in the DRM being cracked before release?
Publishers are now eroding the potential sale day advantage of DRM through the latest practice of offering games for early release in an attempt to secure an ever larger number of pre-orders for popular titles. This leads to the obvious question: Does DRM make financial sense to include in titles if they risk being cracked before release date? Conversely, does releasing games early to selected customers make financial sense if it results in the DRM being cracked before release?
Does it still slow games to a crawl at random? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen tests that show that some types of DRM do impact the performance of games, Denuvo being one of them. I've seen results from a 5 to 10 frame drop, or larger. That is not trivial. DRM is not stopping piracy. As it is now, the pirates are getting the superior product. Games that are DRM free will always get more money from me than games with horrible DRM.
I'll tell you it makes me not want to buy games (Score:4, Informative)
It's all bullshit... (Score:3, Insightful)
... the reason Denuvo is even possible is because the internet fundamentally alterated the relationship between PC game buyer and PC game seller. Developers and publishers have all the power now since customers are 100's of miles away and can't simply storm their offices and force the drm and evil server locks out of their AAA games. High speed internet was the biggest cheat code ever granted to game companies by the laws of our universe. Once they make a game they can just keep it on their servers while giving you only half the game you paid for, while giving you the big shit sandwitch.
The tech industries (and hence game industry) eternal quest was to get rid of software ownership and to take control of the customers PC/software to exploit them for profits. They've been doing a remarkable job and this all began with Ultima RPG's on the PC back in the 90's, they rebadged RPG's as mmo's to get a gullible gaming public to pay monthly for the same fucking game because they know the public is stupid and illiterate as fuck.
Denuvo, mmo's and steam could only exist in a world where the average person is bumfuck retard level stupid in the head. All the cool things we used to get in the 90's like QeRadiant for quake and level editors have been dialed back completely because, the worlds technology illiterate got locked down smart phones and high speed internet.
That enabled companis to put gambling interfaces into software and reach the 3% of the population that is, the super rich, the super dumb and super impulsive. Let's remember League of legends model has a conversion rate of less than 3%, so that means most gamers aren't stupid enough to hand Riot money. The same thing you see on Mobile games where these mobile games have a gambing/gacha interface. THe internet allowed game companies to simply keep the software and disposess the public from owning and controlling the software so they can just exploit the 3% willy nilly and make super profits.
Watching this all go down for 20 years was pretty alarming, I never thought the camel getting it's nose into the tend would mean the entire game industry would clean up 20 years later because of locked down smart phones gave the access to the global population with too much money and people with impulse control problems, allowing game companies to be incentivized to never give people the full software they are paying for ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like online games, don't play online games then. If you prefer the good old games you own - do like me, and play them! What is the obsession with having "new" games every year?
You don't seem to understand the agenda, the agenda for the corporate world is to get rid of game ownership entirely. Quake 3 is an "online game" but you own and control it, it has dedicated server that comes with the game and tools to edit levels, Quake champions is an "online game" except the company owns and controls the software, meaning you get jack shit. They simply prevent you from controlling the software by coding it in a hostile way and hopign people are stupid enough to pay for microtransactio
Re: (Score:1)
It could also be argued that the internet changed the relationship because stealing/copying/sharing/whatever became trivial worldwide instead of exchanging physical media with your local buddies like the olden days.
Look at both sides of the internet changing the dynamic.
Re: (Score:2)
It could also be argued that the internet changed the relationship because stealing/copying/sharing/whatever became trivial worldwide instead of exchanging physical media with your local buddies like the olden days.
Look at both sides of the internet changing the dynamic.
Except before high speed internet everywhere companies did not have the ability to shut off or break the game you are paying for, aka quake 3 can't be broken by a game company because it's a complete game. Where as most modern games require a server in order to function. That's where the theft/stealing comes in on behalf of game companies. Your game only exists by fiat of corporate CEO's.
Re: (Score:2)
... the reason Denuvo is even possible is because the internet fundamentally alterated the relationship between PC game buyer and PC game seller.
The premise of your post is completely wrong and DRM well and truly predates the internet. The only difference was previous DRM schemes could be broken with a photocopier, or simply a pen.
As to your second point, Denuvo fundamentally prevents publishers needing to do exactly what you said: Withholding assets. If withholding assets was the tactic then you wouldn't need DRM, it would be inherent in the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just EA. Take Tabula Rasa as an example. I had a large group of friends with whom I liked to play. Then NCSoft decided it wasn't profitable and shut it down. No more Tabula Rasa.
If it was like the old days the OP was talking about, we could've set up a server, and continued on playing happily. We weren't in it for the PvP, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the principle of the thing; exactly the same as music, movies, etc.
If I pay for something, I expect to be able to access it in perpetuity. How is it fair to shut down a game a year after release, and leave everyone hanging?
Now, if a game is subscription only, (as in, you don't pay an initial fee to buy a "copy" of the game,) then one could argue that's different.
You can also argue, as you did, the wisdom of buying anything that you don't have complete control over, (games, music, movies, etc.)
False premise for DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic premise for the need of DRM is false. It assumes people who would buy the game the moment it comes out are the same group as the people who would pirate it. Which is quite sad, the companies basically believe their customers are pirates and they would not pay if they were given the chance. Which has been proven false in many ways. In fact, from personal experience, the people who would pay for a game would only pirate it if there is a reason, like DRM making their life difficult.
I know I am just preaching to the choir here...
Re: (Score:1)
I can't remember if I ever bought a game because I couldn't pirate it. When I was a kid I would pirate because I couldn't afford games, or just because it was fun to pirate. If I couldn't pirate it, I lived without it until I could. I still spent money on the games that I really loved though. Now that I'm older, I don't pirate at all. However, I do hate DRM. If I buy a game that is only available with DRM, I wait until the price is reduced and then goes on a big sale. I spend an average between $2.50 and $7
Re: (Score:2)
>I bought a game because I couldn't pirate it immediately
>This is MOST people
You gotta turn your baseball cap backwards before you rap with us, fellow game enthusiast.
Re:False premise for DRM. (Score:5, Interesting)
Eventually though, investors will realize this is just a load of shit. Just make good games and you'll get showered with money. There was just a story here about Rockstar having the largest weekend haul with their new game. Or look at companies like CD Projekt Red that are selling their games on GoG without DRM and they've grown from a small studio to a massively successful one and their newest game has a massive amount of hype behind it. Their games are easier to pirate than any other since it has no DRM on it, yet they've made massive amounts of money as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually though, investors will realize this is just a load of shit. Just make good games and you'll get showered with money.
Not so young padawan, CEO's have discovered the ultimate "3%" via locked down games and gacha/gambling mobile games. They want to bring that to all games. Mobile is making profits that is on route to eclipse the entire PC and Console game market combined because of the locked down nature of smart phones and the fact they've put gambling interface on it for the super rich, super stupid, and super impulsive. That 3% is what game companies are now after.
https://newzoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Newzoo_2 [newzoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It could be statistics and bloody statistics. Now I understand it, that most gamers, since the advent of entirely bullshit hype marketing and bullshit reviews, were not buying games until months after they have come out, even waiting an year for the first major discount or yeah, the game turns out to be shite and not buying it. This creates an interesting tilt in statistics, if real gamers are waiting, then early buyers will mainly be inexperienced minors and the gullible, a fraction of the entire market, t
It's about kids (Score:2)
To be fair though I'd be free to play, especially Fortnight, is hurting way more than piracy every did in that market.
Re: (Score:2)
In all honestly, I think there's at least some crossover.... but the biggest reason the game makers don't have more piracy than they do is the trend towards multi-player games requiring server-side logins.
It does no good to pirate a game if it doesn't include a valid login ID to do much more than play through a few tutorial missions.
DRM is garbage, any way you look at it, though because it punishes EVERYONE who pays for the program. They've got to deal with the additional restrictions and hassles the DRM i
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, DRM never has and never will make any sense. Like you say, it does nothing but inconvenience actual customers. The people that pirate it are rarely deterred for any real length of time. Cracking games has been a thing since the beginning, when "find the 10th word on page 17" piracy protection was first introduced. And it will always be a thing. The entire DRM industry is completely pointless, and I have no idea how it still exists. Publishers are clueless, both about DRMs actual success rate, and
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solutions (Score:1)
Forget relying on a pre-package DRM solution. Make games where internet access is a necessity to enjoy the game.
When the game boots have some data structures with critical assets that must be loaded from data that is only available on servers.
Release day should also be the day that a new protection layer is introduced, so even if the pre-relase DRM had been cracked, somehow; folks would have to start over after release.
Re:Simple solutions (Score:5, Funny)
We've found our next publisher-industry consultant folks, call off the search. "New idea" that retreads concepts that have been in use for years -- product activation and/or required-all-the-time internet access -- CHECK. Consumer hostile mechanism that ensures that once the publisher loses interest and takes down the servers, the consumer loses their ability to use what they've purchased -- CHECK.
Updating DRM on the release copy while magically thinking that the previous version wouldn't have roadmapped how to defeat it -- CHECK.
You're the trifecta, man. Get your resume out there.
Re: (Score:2)
that ensures that once the publisher loses interest and takes down the servers, the consumer loses their ability to use what they've purchased
This doesn't have to be customer hostile. Since we're primarily concerned about protecting the software at release --- how about delivering a patch scheduled for 1 year after release that removes DRM to ease the maintenance burden and load on the servers.
We can avoid requiring "continuous internet access" by "downloading such and such data payload for offline u
Re: (Score:2)
It's been tried many times, and many people cry out "always on internet drm sucks". Microsoft tried it for an entire console, too. And nevermind the likes of Ubisoft which proposed doing it for all their games.
Maybe all the PC needs is to drop the AAA games and live on
Answers to the questions (Score:2)
Does DRM make financial sense to include in titles if they risk being cracked before release date?
The purpose of DRM is to prevent unauthorized redistribution of digital media and restrict the ways consumers can copy content they've purchased. So no.
Conversely, does releasing games early to selected customers make financial sense if it results in the DRM being cracked before release?
They keep doing it, so it must be worth it to them. The inverse of this would be to ask: "Does it make financial sense to purchase a game, if it's just going to get old (boring) later anyway?"
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of DRM is to prevent unauthorized redistribution of digital media and restrict the ways consumers can copy content they've purchased. So no.
You didn't answer the question. In fact your reply includes no hint of economics or finance. The question you answered:
"Is DRM good from the perspective of the consumer" is not the question which was asked.
They keep doing it, so it must be worth it to them.
You haven't been paying attention. They don't keep doing it. Actually this is a very new trend in the industry. A lot of previous pre-order bonuses included gimmicky extras, or early betas not relevant to the release. The closest second that is related to the current trend of releasing games early was to
Re: (Score:2)
Does DRM make financial sense to include in titles if they risk being cracked before release date?
My answer (re-worded for you):
The purpose of DRM is to prevent people from redistributing and restrict the ways copying happens. So if people are still able to do this, then the purpose of DRM has been defeated, causing the DRM to be pointless. So the answer, also in my last post, is "no".
You haven't been paying attention. They don't keep doing it. Actually this is a very new trend in the industry.
Man, you lost all possibilities of respect from this community here on slashdot with that comment. You simply need to look up DRM and when it started. I think it was 1983, but let's see what wikipedia says...
In 1983, a very early implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM) was the Software Service System (SSS) devised by the Japanese engineer Ryuichi Moriya.
At least we agree on the last item, even if you don't know what the word "inverse" means.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of DRM is to prevent people from redistributing and restrict the ways copying happens. So if people are still able to do this, then the purpose of DRM has been defeated, causing the DRM to be pointless. So the answer, also in my last post, is "no".
And yet you still didn't answer the question. The question has a premise that is linked to a certain time window around the release date. Any answer you give that doesn't include this premise isn't answering the question. This premise comes through even if you take that question out of context of the rest of the paragraph, context that includes phrases like "sale day advantage of DRM".
You're still talking about DRM in a general case, an answer that presents a different economic proposition when compared wit
Re: (Score:2)
Turning away customers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! Who the fuck do they think they are?
My gaming PC belongs to Microsoft!
Oh wait...
Shiny new DRM (Score:2)
The publisher DID REMOVE Denuvo from 2016's HITMAN (Score:1)
It's worth noting that the publisher/developer DID REMOVE Denuvo from the 2016 HITMAN at some point after release, so they're at least a little more responsible than other publishers who leave that crap there forever, losing my business in the process.
It's also worth noting that the 2016 HITMAN had a great Linux release by Feral Interactive (who have done Linux versions of other notable AAA titles, like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Mad Max) and there's no Denuvo for Linux (thankfully).
Anyone who wants to avoid
DRM is like locking your bed room door. (Score:2)
With most simple locks the door to say your bed room can be easily opened, however 99% of the time, if it is locked people will do the bare minimum to open it. Turn the handle and push on the door. It didn't work, then they stop.
Shamus Young has an insightful appraisal of Denuvo (Score:5, Informative)
One of my favourite gaming authors has an insightful appraisal of Denuvo and how effective it is. His conclusion is that it's already proven all the publisher's claims about piracy to be lies and in doing so has made itself redundant.
If you want to learn more about what Denuvo is and how it works from a games programmer and (good) author, then it's well worth a read.
Here's the main thrust of the article:
> On the other hand, I stand by the point I made four years ago: Denuvo is so good it proved it was useless.
>
> For years, consumers complained about intrusive DRM. It locks you out of your legitimately purchased product.
> It creates bugs and slowdowns. It’s a hassle. It makes it impossible to run the game years later when the servers
> go down. It punishes legitimate customers while doing nothing to inconvenience the pirates.
>
> In response to these concerns, publishers would tell us that strong DRM was necessary because of rampant piracy.
> Piracy was blamed for high prices, or for a refusal to port games to the PC. Developers claimed that between 90%
> and 95% of players were using pirated copies. This led publishers to make absurd claims that game prices would be
> lower or that they wouldn’t need to close so many studios if there weren’t so many dang pirates,. The assumption was
> that if 90% of players are pirates, then games would make ten times as much money if we could stop piracy. All those
> pirates would run out and buy legitimate copies and it would usher in a golden age of low prices and profitability.
>
> Tomb Raider 2013 pre-dates Denuvo. Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Rise of the Tomb Raider were both protected
> by Denuvo. And yet we haven’t heard about any miraculous sales spike that caused the second two games to massively
> outsell the first. If Denuvo makes any difference at all, it must be very slight. Is it even enough to offset the loss of
> potential customers? If Denuvo was actually making a measurable difference in terms of sales, wouldn’t all games be
> using it by now?
https://www.escapistmagazine.c... [escapistmagazine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is hardly "proof" though. It seems entirely plausible that a lot more people might have been more excited by the combination of "next gen"+nostalgia for the 2013 reboot than there would be people excited for subsequent, more incremental itera
DRM must die (Score:2)
As always DRM makes life difficult for paying customers while pirates enjoy a hassle-free experience. The last example on the list is EA titles which allow you to change your hardware configuration only 5 times during a 24-hours period, so GPU/CPU reviewers end up buying ... several licenses just to be able to carry out their battery of tests across dozens of HW configurations.
Then we have the usual fuck-ups when companies shut down their DRM/multiplayer servers which makes it impossible to play uncracked
If only they weren't so greedy (Score:2)
There's a relatively easy, straightforward solution to the piracy problem, but manufacturers are too greedy to consider it. Simply don't release a game at all until a pre-defined number of paid orders has been received. Deal with updates in a similar fashion. Nobody gets that great new weapon until enough people have bucked up for it.
Step two would be a free release with a few not-too-annoying nags built in to encourage people to pay. Stay under the threshold where average gamers decide it's worth pirat
Think different (Score:2)
There aren't many bright crackers left today. I guess the really smart and active guys can be counted on one hand.
I think it would be cheaper and more efficient to pay every Top10-Cracker some $1000 per day as long as the game stays uncracked.