• gila
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3381 year ago

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

    • Veraxus
      link
      fedilink
      2351 year ago

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

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

      • gila
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

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

    • Julian
      link
      fedilink
      English
      821 year ago

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

        • @Derproid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

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

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

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

        • @Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

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

    • circuitfarmer
      link
      English
      391 year ago

      That’s the thing: paying consumers always pay the price for DRM by having to jump through any hoops.

      • gila
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        You’re right, according to Ubi the update on PC was ‘included in the 41.6 GB game files ahead of Oct 5’. It was a prerelease patch, not day 1.

        Nice of Epic to start directly exploiting the lack of PC physical media around the same time people are talking about getting rid of disc drives on consoles.

          • gila
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think the primary method of PC sales for this game is on the Epic Game Store. Yeah I neglected to consider it’s also available from Ubisoft+ or whatever but also does anyone actually use that

            Epic Game Store also doesn’t have any preloading, meaning they had all the opportunity to deploy Denuvo pre-launch but post-embargo without having preloads as a loose end.

    • @ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

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