Will DRM Finally Beat Piracy? Notorious Cracking Forum Says Yes

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

DRM will never prevent piracy, but putting up smokescreens and pretending they are doing something about them has always been the real point.

Sure. But for this smokescreen to work DRM has to fail. But Denuvo isn't DRM and it works. It seems that FIFA 16 and Just Cause 3 are yet to be cracked. So those guys have perfected their system. Devs and publishers aren't that stupid.

Ultimately it's about the bottom line. Numbers don't lie if piracy rate is 0%. So let's say that you have a publisher who used Denuvo and still the sales numbers end up lower or just about what they'd expected even with piracy. When they look at the numbers there is literally only one conclusion they can reach. Sales are lower than expected or equal to what they'd expect even with piracy but they can't blame piracy. Which means that money spent on protecting their software with Denuvo is a waste. And businesses don't like losing money.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Very interesting article. I do however think that DRM can't win. It might take a while, but all things can be cracked. Obviously if the crackers give up, then yes, DRM wins, but my thought on this matter and all such things is very simple. Anything that has a legitimate way in, can be accessed illegitimately. If it has a keyhole, a login box, a retinal scanner, whatever, it can be cracked. Even if the method of access is to duplicate the legitimate entry method, any opening can be accessed. Ultimately, any game or software program has to be decrypted in RAM to run so any exe can be reverse engineered to remove any checks and encryption.

I remember one really clever and interesting copy protection method for some PS1/2 game, like Spyro or something like that. The game functioned normally in every respect but one. The player needed coins or something to proceed from one level to the next and the amount available would gradually reduce to the point where it's impossible to proceed beyond a certain level. Not dissimilar to the more recent Arkham Asylum method (Batman's wings don't open) or Game Dev Tycoon (game always ends in failure).

 

[dragoongfa]

Am I old for remembering the time when Starforce and Securom DRM were considered fully uncrackable?

Prince of Persia 3 had Starforce and it wasn't cracked for almost a full year but it was still cracked in the end; most importantly though the consumers hated Starforce with a passion because of how damaging to their DVD drives it was at the time. Same but to less extent was securom.

Everything gets cracked and every heavy form of DRM will draw the ire of the end consumer.

 

[Dirkie]

For me, yes, DRM will stop me from pirating gaming.
It also stops me from buying and playing it, and I will find a less intrusive way of spending my money, like GOG.com.
A little bit of a grey area when it comes to steam, because it's awfully convenient, but EA's Origin or Ubisoft are things I wont even start with.

 

[eberhart]

If Internet experiences some sort of a revolution and DRM-via-streaming becomes possible, then consumers will also be able to stream to each other. So, basically:

- remote desktop-ish tool,
- a way to safely and effortlessly set up a profile that gives no access outside of selected games,
- a service allowing people to form a community and eg. trade hours of their game X for credit they could spend accessing games Y or Z (or moving up in a queue to the nearest desired streamer).

Seeing how people are willing to seed every kind of data via torrents 24/7, there's no reason to doubt people would let others play. The only difference would lie in higher power consumption and, in certain cases, games needing more horsepower, therefore restricting their own simultaneous use of PC. But that's what different timezones are for.

As for legalese, it wouldn't be different from allowing someone to use your PC and have fun *in your house*. Especially when you can't use it at the same time.

 

[maninahat]

Even if that held true, it wouldn't mean more sales, just less people playing your games. Hell, it will likely result in less sales, considering how damaging DRM can be.

To boost sales, all they'd have to do was add a splash screen that said "If you enjoyed this game, please consider purchasing it" and people would be more inclined to do so.

I'm not sure that's even the point. After all, if a cinema was to put better locks on their back doors, thus preventing me from sneaking into the back of a cinema to watch free movies every week, I think it shows they are less concerned about me paying for tickets so much as stopping cheeky, cheapskates from taking the piss out of their business.

That said, I imagine they would appreciate it if I did start paying for movies in future.

 

[Totenkreuz]

I remember a saying which I personally agree with.
"If it was created by humans then it can also be destroyed by them aswell."

There is no perfect system, anything and everything can be broken. In a way I agree with using DRM, aslong as it's not hindering the person buying the product, but I understand why people might not enjoy those systems aswell, in the end people will do what they want, I only hope it is within the law.

Cheers.

 

[immortalfrieza]

DRM will never prevent piracy, but putting up smokescreens and pretending they are doing something about them has always been the real point.

Sure. But for this smokescreen to work DRM has to fail. But Denuvo isn't DRM and it works. It seems that FIFA 16 and Just Cause 3 are yet to be cracked. So those guys have perfected their system. Devs and publishers aren't that stupid.

Piracy itself is the smokescreen, as is anything businesses blame for their own failure to make money. DRM HAS failed, DRM will ALWAYS fail, as will any other system designed to prevent piracy, the effect of piracy can only be minimized, not eliminated. Denuvo is DRM, it's just something that they falsely claim isn't DRM because it exists to "protect" other DRM, but for all intents and purposes Denuvo is just a second layer of DRM. It doesn't work any better than any other DRM either, both FIFA 16 and Just Cause 3 only came out a few months ago, sometimes it takes a while for DRM to be cracked and as a matter of fact Denuvo has been cracked before with every game that has it up to this point EXCEPT FIFA 16 and JC3, and thus it's only a matter of time before both games will be cracked. As hackers continue to crack games the inevitable result is it'll become quicker and easier to do as they keep doing it. All DRM will at most ensure a select few games (if that) will avoid being cracked during the first couple months it takes to get the vast majority of the sales the game is likely to ever get, while screwing over the legitimate customer and driving other customers away because of that DRM in the process. Then once that particular DRM is being cracked like it was made of swiss cheese a bit will go by before the next "uncrackable DRM" will come out that does the same thing, repeat ad infinitum. Pirates themselves have always been and always will be the only ones who don't end up worse off because of DRM or anything similar.

Ultimately it's about the bottom line. Numbers don't lie if piracy rate is 0%. So let's say that you have a publisher who used Denuvo and still the sales numbers end up lower or just about what they'd expected even with piracy. When they look at the numbers there is literally only one conclusion they can reach. Sales are lower than expected or equal to what they'd expect even with piracy but they can't blame piracy. Which means that money spent on protecting their software with Denuvo is a waste. And businesses don't like losing money.

If the piracy rate is 0% they'll just find something else to blame and focus their effort and money to trying to stop. Before digitally downloadable media and thus piracy became viable it was bootlegs and secondhand sales that were blamed for their inability to make the money they wanted to. Businesses don't like losing money, but they are scared to death of admitting responsibility for their failures much much more. In the end, even if it costs them some money to "fix" the nonexistent problem businesses spend that money because creating a false air of competence to those they have to answer to gains them more money than they'd ever lose doing that.

 

[DoPo]

Am I old for remembering the time when Starforce and Securom DRM were considered fully uncrackable?

By whom? The creators of Starforce and Securom? Because I can't actually remember anybody else claiming that.

Prince of Persia 3 had Starforce and it wasn't cracked for almost a full year

It was Prince of Persia Two Thrones (3 would be old title Prince of Persia 3D) and I wasn't aware it had such a reputation, I certainly can't remember having this reputation before, either. Possibly because it was cracked well under an almost full year.

After a brief and casual check, I found an update to a crack that is timestamped as of April 2006. The game came out in December 2005.

Actually, I also found a noCD patch from December 2005.

 

[TechNoFear]

is an new form of DRM called "Denuvo" developed by Denuvo Software Solutions GmbH.

Denuvo is not a form of DRM, Denuvo is anti-tamper software.

The difference is that Denuvo only makes it harder to reverse engineer the software, Denuvo does not in any way check if the running software is licensed.

Denuvo is created by ex-crackers, which means the creators know what tools / methods the crackers will use to attack / decompile / monitor the software.

Denuvo then makes these tools / methods much less effective (ie crashes the debugger, obfuscates variable use, times execution, etc)

It also appears that part of Denuvo is encryption based on the target systems hardware config, so a solution that works on one machine may fail on another.

This is why Denuvo has been successful, because Denuvo is designed to make cracking the DRM extremely boring, frustrating and repetitive (which puts off a lot of crackers).

 

[dragoongfa]

Am I old for remembering the time when Starforce and Securom DRM were considered fully uncrackable?

By whom? The creators of Starforce and Securom? Because I can't actually remember anybody else claiming that.

Them and the publishers who strapped those monstrosities on the games.

It was Prince of Persia Two Thrones (3 would be old title Prince of Persia 3D) and I wasn't aware it had such a reputation, I certainly can't remember having this reputation before, either. Possibly because it was cracked well under an almost full year.

After a brief and casual check, I found an update to a crack that is timestamped as of April 2006. The game came out in December 2005.

Actually, I also found a noCD patch from December 2005.

It's always gonna be Prince of Persia 3 for the younger generation

The early cracks didn't work and hanged the PC of a friend repeatedly (Guess who had to go and try to fix a 'virus').

A well known scene group only managed to crack it by the end of September 2006 which finally allowed that idiot to run it and say 'meh' because the second one was better.

Still less than an year by 2 and a half months though so you got me there.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

If the piracy rate is 0% they'll just find something else to blame and focus their effort and money to trying to stop. Before digitally downloadable media and thus piracy became viable it was bootlegs and secondhand sales that were blamed for their inability to make the money they wanted to. Businesses don't like losing money, but they are scared to death of admitting responsibility for their failures much much more. In the end, even if it costs them some money to "fix" the nonexistent problem businesses spend that money because creating a false air of competence to those they have to answer to gains them more money than they'd ever lose doing that.

Businesses have a list of all the expenses. If piracy rate is 0% but sales are still the same or lower as if piracy wasn't 0% then it's clear as day to everyone involved that money that went towards piracy protection was something they didn't have to spend. It's not a matter of being unable to take responsibility, it's not about trying to find other things to blame. Even if they can find other things to blame, it's still the unavoidable fact that piracy protection wasn't something they needed to spend money on. That's the conclusion that can't escape them. These people care only about the numbers and numbers don't lie. It's not personal for them. That's why these types of technologies fail to last long in the industry. Businesses don't want to continue paying for something that ultimately costs them more than letting pirates have their fun, because they have to account for every cent below expectations.

 

[Syzygy23]

In other news, the crossbow has just been invented. That's it people, pack up your stuff and go home. The arms-race is now over, nothing will ever trump it. History ends today.

I know this is a joke, but the invention of the crossbow basically completely changed the way wars were fought. All of a sudden people with very minimal training could be effective in battle against even hardened veterans. Nothing, not even the gun, changed war as much as crossbows did.

Gun changed WAYYYYYY more than the crossbow did. Look at German tactics right around the victorian/WW1 era. Suddenly armor was worthless and mobility was priceless.

is an new form of DRM called "Denuvo" developed by Denuvo Software Solutions GmbH.

Denuvo is not a form of DRM, Denuvo is anti-tamper software.

The difference is that Denuvo only makes it harder to reverse engineer the software, Denuvo does not in any way check if the running software is licensed.

Denuvo is created by ex-crackers, which means the creators know what tools / methods the crackers will use to attack / decompile / monitor the software.

Denuvo then makes these tools / methods much less effective (ie crashes the debugger, obfuscates variable use, times execution, etc)

It also appears that part of Denuvo is encryption based on the target systems hardware config, so a solution that works on one machine may fail on another.

This is why Denuvo has been successful, because Denuvo is designed to make cracking the DRM extremely boring, frustrating and repetitive (which puts off a lot of crackers).

Former Crackers? SO I guess you could say they aren't Pirates anymore, they're... Privateers?

Where's our digital Johnny Depp when we need him?!?

 

[DracoSuave]

"Hey guys this top selling game doesn't have drm therefore drm hurts sales" is a weak argument in a world where "the other nine of the top ten selling games this year have drm and sold great."

Look, I know that it's all fine and dandy to post in the forums that most people who use pirated software do so for good intentions or to get around barriers to legally perchased software...

But then ya'll got that friend of a friend, maybe named Jimmy, who happens to get illegal downloads cause they want free stuff. Funny how you guys talk about this Jimmy but pretend he doesn't exist when making antidrm arguments. We all know Jimmys. Some Jimmy types might even be talking and trying not to let it slip they are Jimmy.

Companies aren't stupid and they know Jimmy exists and they know Jimmy will lie about being Jimmy; Sometimes Jimmy lies to himself and pretends he ain't no Jimmy.

So long as the Jimmies keep pretending there ain't no Jimmies and the rest of us refuse to admit there's a lot of Jimmies then there's no point in negotiation with the companies as they are the ones dealing with the truth. We need to be honest and admit there's a LOT more thieves pirating than we let on so that we don't come across as naive, dishonest, or delusional.

Feel free to comment, it's something to talk about while waiting for the next season of Game of Thrones to start on HBO. Which is how we all watch it right? Cause there ain't no Jimmie here.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I thought FIFA games have always been uncrackable, at least for the past couple of years. Why don't they just use the same technology on other games that they use on that franchise?

 

[Lightspeaker]

"Hey guys this top selling game doesn't have drm therefore drm hurts sales" is a weak argument in a world where "the other nine of the top ten selling games this year have drm and sold great."

Look, I know that it's all fine and dandy to post in the forums that most people who use pirated software do so for good intentions or to get around barriers to legally perchased software...

But then ya'll got that friend of a friend, maybe named Jimmy, who happens to get illegal downloads cause they want free stuff. Funny how you guys talk about this Jimmy but pretend he doesn't exist when making antidrm arguments. We all know Jimmys. Some Jimmy types might even be talking and trying not to let it slip they are Jimmy.

Companies aren't stupid and they know Jimmy exists and they know Jimmy will lie about being Jimmy; Sometimes Jimmy lies to himself and pretends he ain't no Jimmy.

So long as the Jimmies keep pretending there ain't no Jimmies and the rest of us refuse to admit there's a lot of Jimmies then there's no point in negotiation with the companies as they are the ones dealing with the truth. We need to be honest and admit there's a LOT more thieves pirating than we let on so that we don't come across as naive, dishonest, or delusional.

Feel free to comment, it's something to talk about while waiting for the next season of Game of Thrones to start on HBO. Which is how we all watch it right? Cause there ain't no Jimmie here.

Except that's never the argument, you are entirely missing the point of both the argument and, indeed, DRM itself.

DRM is NOT intended to prevent people from pirating games. Okay, technically it is, but that's not its GOAL as far as the company is concerned. Its goal is to turn sufficient numbers of people who would pirate it into people who would pay for it to increase profits. Which means the money brought in as a result of these theoretically increased sales covers the cost of the DRM and more.

Companies don't actually care that people are getting their software for free illegally. What they care about is the potential loss of income associated with it. Those two things are linked but they are absolutely not the same thing.


Lets take your own example: There may be plenty of Jimmies. But there are also plenty of Billies. Billy buys all of his games completely legitimately. Never pirated in his life.

Games companies want to turn Jimmies into Billies. DRM is founded on the basis that making it hard to be a Jimmy will turn people into a Billy; because the assumption is that one Jimmy = one lost sale. That if not for filthy piracy lots and lots of Jimmies would be Billies.

Except this absolutely hasn't been proven. Just because someone has illegally downloaded a piece of software does not mean that, if they couldn't get that piece of software illegally for free, that they would buy it. It isn't the case that they must either buy it or pirate it; they can also just forget about it and not bother.

And therein lies the problem. Unless companies absolutely unequivocally prove that illegally downloaded copies are lost sales as opposed to people not bothering at all then they can't prove that piracy is actually damaging to their business. Because they must prove both that those downloads are lost sales AND that those lost sales justify the cost of and, indeed, the lost sales from their inclusion of whatever DRM they choose.


I don't download myself as a general rule, though I know people who do; but you don't have to 'pretend' that people who pirate don't exist because this entire argument just falls apart from a pure business sense perspective, its not really a business decision but more a liability decision. You see...the biggest reason for keeping DRM in is to keep people like shareholders happy, its an arse-covering exercise in the extreme. If you (as a corporate executive) don't bother then shareholders will turn around and nail you to the wall for not putting DRM in if the game sells poorly because its OBVIOUSLY been pirated by everyone and you didn't even try to stop them. If you do put it in then if it sells poorly you can at least shrug your shoulders and say you tried, but everyone pirated it anyway despite your very best efforts so it wasn't your fault.


(As far as Game of Thrones goes...actually I have no idea where people watch it in the UK. I just wait until the Blu Ray sets come out.)

 

[blackrave]

Unlikely.
DRM is only good for a few months- after that it gets cracked.
There is no such thing as "uncrackable" game.

Personally I would like to see a gaming industry where game gets unlocked 6-12 months after release by devs themselves.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

I'm with those who are skeptical about this claim, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that, at the very least, DRM will get to the point where you can't pirate it until many months after the game comes out. That's a win-win situation to me: people who want the game NOW will have to pay for it, while anyone else who has whatever excuse they can come up with to pirate will get that chance... but only after a while. After all, any market analyst will tell you the vast majority of sales come on launch day, at least for the high-profile games.

 

[Strazdas]

Except that Its Denuvo, so not only is it crack-able (3DM are good, but not the best), but it also harms legitimate customers and removes mod-ability. Denuvo is a giant "fuck you" to every legitimate customer out there.

After all, those first months are where most sales are made.

Only for bad games that people dont encourage others to buy them. For good games most sales are actually made during, well, sales.

That's BS. Every one knows that the only true way to stop piracy is videogame streaming.

the problem is - Game streaming is never going to work.

Well, I didn't say that it'll be done right tomorrow - in 5-10 years this model will be the future - the most perfect way to combat piracy.
And if you don't have a bandwidth for that - well, you won't play any games then, not my problem.

I dont think you understand. the model is literally imposible to implement. To stream 1080p 60 fps uncompressed data you would need an internet connection of AT LEAST 600mbps. And thats just the minimum standard for games now, let alone in 10 years.

Furthermore, if that problem was solved, there is still the problem of Ping. see, with streaming games ping impacts games input lag. Normally we consider input lag that is above 30 ms to be unacceptable when playing videogames. However even if we assume 100% efficiency in the system, the sheer time it takes for light (we are using fiber optics here) to travel from your computer to server and back will take longer. So, see, the speed of light is the limit, and its too slow for streaming games to ever be possible. good luck overcoming that obsticle in 10 years time.

You know, call me nostalgic, but whatever happened to the days where not being able to afford a piece of entertainment just meant you didn't buy it and got on with your life?

Those days never existed. bootleg copies were always around. even before we had printed word there were people illegally making copies of books manually. piracy is as old as media.

I can see it now: CEO of Oversized Game Corporation says "gamers are going over to friends' houses to play our games for free, trading their PCs to get out of paying for games, or letting their non-paying siblings, spouses, and children use their accounts to play our games. We have to stop this by mandating webcam facial recognition to verify the user is the paying customer." [small]Sorry, I might have gotten a little 1984 there.[/small]

Funny thing, playing a game at friends house that you didnt pay for is technically illegal under DMCA.

This? This, right here? This is a crucial distinction.

In the argument of piracy as either theft or 'copyright infringement', this distinction is often muddled. The fact is, when you pirate a game, you're not playing a free game, you're stealing information. You're free to argue about the consequence of that action, but let's not pretend that it isn't theft.

Yes, the distinction is crucian. Piracy is copyright infringement, which is NOT theft, because you do NOT steal anything. It is not theft neither legally nor morally.