Denuvo Anti-Tamper (anti-piracy solution)

[Annisman*]

By far the most important thing that anti piracy measures can achieve is not allowing the game to be cracked shortly after launch and much much more importantly not letting a cracked copy make it online pre release. If a developer can make it that far, and it's a decent product they are mostly in the clear. Gamers are a fickle bunch, they want to play the (good) games as soon as they can and often won't wait around for a cracked version while their friends are busy enjoying the game legally. Alternatively, even the most honest person may be tempted to download a cracked copy of a game if it's leaked days before release for the same reason.

 

[Jodell88]

And how would you feel if the CDPR's the Witcher 3 decided to use it?

CD Projekt has already said that they're no longer going to use DRM for their games. The also have patched out their DRM from the previous witcher games after about a year or two of being released.

The patching out of DRM after a game has been released after a reasonable amount of time is something I wish more devs would do.

I think the majority of AAA games released in the last 10 years or so may not be playable in the future due to the DRM used.

 

[RampantAndroid]

CD Projekt has already said that they're no longer going to use DRM for their games. The also have patched out their DRM from the previous witcher games after about a year or two of being released.

The patching out of DRM after a game has been released after a reasonable amount of time is something I wish more devs would do.

I think the majority of AAA games released in the last 10 years or so may not be playable in the future due to the DRM used.

It depends on the DRM - many games 10 years old are on GoG these days and are very playable...with some effort taken by GoG. Hell, they got System Shock 2 on there. Now if only I could find my System Shock 1 CD.

It's the "always online" DRMed games that will be a problem. But more often than not, I think those always online games were a flop, or were altered to not require it (is Diablo 3 still an online required game?)

I don't agree with pricing games down in Russia because their economy is bad. While I will say that I believe $60 for a game is too much when DLC is so bleeping common, I don't think that users in the US should be forced to pay $60 USD and Russian users get to pay whatever $10 USD is in Rubles.

 

[SPBHM]

I don't agree with pricing games down in Russia because their economy is bad. While I will say that I believe $60 for a game is too much when DLC is so bleeping common, I don't think that users in the US should be forced to pay $60 USD and Russian users get to pay whatever $10 USD is in Rubles.

they ask what they think people will pay in Russia... it's that or making less money by asking a price no one is going to pay... I see this as good move, they are just making a little less profit per unit, and more overall on that country than they would without special prices, I think.

if people in the US stopped paying $60 for a game, they would be forced to lower price (like they do with older games that start selling almost nothing)...

for me as I said before what I think is wrong is trying to ask the same price for PC and consoles, digital and retail, it's sad... but... if people are paying...

 

[RampantAndroid]

they ask what they think people will pay in Russia... it's that or making less money by asking a price no one is going to pay... I see this as good move, they are just making a little less profit per unit, and more overall on that country than they would without special prices, I think.

if people in the US stopped paying $60 for a game, they would be forced to lower price (like they do with older games that start selling almost nothing)...

for me as I said before what I think is wrong is trying to ask the same price for PC and consoles, digital and retail, it's sad... but... if people are paying...

Why digital vs physical/retail? In the digital world, if I buy the game EA/Steam/Microsoft/whoever is committing to always let me redownload the game. So they have to cover infrastructure costs for me....as long as they're around. If they sell me a DVD/BluRay with the game (as with consoles) then I can't turn my disc copy into a digital copy - there's no way to re-download the game if I lose my disc...so there's no need to maintain infrastructure for the people buying disc console games.

In the end, I see them as possibly negating each other - the cost of making a case, box, disc and such, versus the bandwidth, hosting (with a CDN) and such with a digital copy.

 

[SPBHM]

Why digital vs physical/retail? In the digital world, if I buy the game EA/Steam/Microsoft/whoever is committing to always let me redownload the game. So they have to cover infrastructure costs for me....as long as they're around. If they sell me a DVD/BluRay with the game (as with consoles) then I can't turn my disc copy into a digital copy - there's no way to re-download the game if I lose my disc...so there's no need to maintain infrastructure for the people buying disc console games.

In the end, I see them as possibly negating each other - the cost of making a case, box, disc and such, versus the bandwidth, hosting (with a CDN) and such with a digital copy.

if you look at how retail games work these days you will see a lot using the same services (like steam, origin, uplay) as DRM, demanding big patches and giving the owner the right to download... I still think there is a higher cost for retail copies, manufacturing, transporting, selling...
but my opinion is mostly for the consoles vs PC game prices, it shouldn't be the same,

 

[desprado]

Imo DRM always hurt legit buyer in different ways.

DRM is a fail approach.Steam is the best way to go.

 

[Carfax83]

From a technological sense, Denuvo is impressive that it hasn't been cracked (or takes ages to crack). Unfortunately, one developer of one of those protected games (Lords of the Fallen) has openly stated it comes with a 5% performance penalty that's specifically due to Denuvo, so it certainly isn't "free". Someone specifically asked a developer over on the Bioware forums what its performance impact is on DAI, and the response was a sleazy politician "non answer" along the lines of "the only way to be sure is to benchmark it with and without, and we haven't bothered, so there." :hmm:

Interesting. Although a 5% performance hit is nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially if it's successful in preventing piracy.

Not happy. I really don't like any DRM which slows performance / locks you into a remote activation server, and despite attempts to downplay it, the overhead of constantly shuffling around memory code around is certainly not "free" by any metric.

It's important to distinguish that Denuvo is not DRM. DRM has a much broader function, and Steam, Origin, Uplay etcetera are all DRM solutions.

Denuvo is strictly anti-piracy and anti-tamper..

 

[Subyman]

I don't believe in ANY anti-piracy barriers on the PC. If you want to support game developers, but can't afford to buy $50-60 games, you will just wait and fairly purchase them at a later date at discounts on Steam/GOG, Origin, etc. OTOH, if you have been pirating games forever, these SecureROM measures will do nothing. As a pirate you won't spend $50 on the game and you will either skip it or pirate it later when it's finally cracked.

Therefore, all these measures only hurt the legitimate consumers.

The problem of piracy has A LOT to do with crazy overpriced price of games worldwide. I can totally understand why PC gamers in poor countries pirate games. A lot of people in Russia only make $500-1000 a month, or about 5-10X less than a similar job in US/Canada. Yet, DAI Deluxe is $45 USD. No sh!t, your games get pirated. Until publishers get that due to purchasing power you MUST price PC games differently for different markets, the piracy on the PC will not be stopped. Steam has proved that with reasonable regional pricing, people start paying for PC games (Russia, China, Brazil).

You are being way too general with your logic. I have a friend that pirates purely on money savings. He has plenty of money to buy games but decides to pirate. Games that have DRM which don't allow a simple download and play have him buying the game no problems. I recently showed him some foreign key websites that he can get a big discount from and he uses those exclusively now because its easier than pirating and he gets to use the legit software like Steam. At least some money gets back to the dev now.

 

[Carfax83]

I disagree and completely think differently. Pirates Do NOT think they're entitled and piracy doesn't affect NEARLY as much as you think.

That's what pirates tell themselves I suppose. I know this because I used to pirate games when I was younger. But as I've gotten older I came to realize how damaging piracy can be to the PC game industry, and I stopped it completely.

When you have pirated copies being downloaded more than legal copies, that is a huge problem. And PC gaming has definitely suffered as a result. PC games now cost more than they ever did, because developers are squeezing the paying customers in an effort to make up for lost sales to pirates. Also, AAA PC only titles are now very rare, compared to the glory days before high speed internet made it possible to download games relatively quickly.

And unlike what some people here think, it's not necessarily a matter of money. When I pirated games, it wasn't that I couldn't afford them. The question is, why pay for something when you can get it for free?

There's a guy I know that pirated Assassin's Creed Unity, even though his rig costs at least 3K. If you can afford an expensive setup like that, surely you can afford 50 bucks for a game.

Or maybe he was "trying before buying" you might say? That's just another improbable excuse. Perhaps a small percentage of people will buy the game eventually, but most I'd wager would not. The incentive to do so just isn't there..

 

[Carfax83]

Imo DRM always hurt legit buyer in different ways.

DRM is a fail approach.Steam is the best way to go.

Steam, Origin, Uplay etcetera are ALL DRM clients..

 

[BSim500]

Interesting. Although a 5% performance hit is nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially if it's successful in preventing piracy.

Well 5% is still 5%, especially for lower end rigs. What if a third layer guaranteed crack prevention for another month but took up 12%? And another layer could block crackers for an extra 6 months but needed 20%? And another layer... The issue to me, is more "slippery slope" than a specific "5%", ie, conditioning the masses to accept ever decreasing performance of any given hardware with zero benefit to the end user.

It's important to distinguish that Denuvo is not DRM. DRM has a much broader function, and Steam, Origin, Uplay etcetera are all DRM solutions. Denuvo is strictly anti-piracy and anti-tamper..

Important for whom, Denuvo's marketing dept? In practice "Denuvo is overlaid onto DRM to protect .exe cracking, but not really DRM itself" makes zero difference to the average person how it's "classed" when it's still another "layer" with its own CPU overhead (on top of mentioned Origin / Steam / UPlay background CPU usage, which can and do spike up sometimes). DRM's only real function is "lock in". All the other "functions" are mostly confused with digital distribution's advantages in general (auto updates / patching, online community, copy of game on the "cloud", etc) which can be done with or without DRM (eg, upcoming GOG Galaxy).

 

[sweenish]

I've been playing Dragon Age Inquisition and the only reason I know that the DRM exists is because of this thread. It appears to be completely hidden from view. Is that really a problem?

Seriously, if that is a problem, to have a method to slow/stop piracy, and the user has no knowledge, then I can't understand why you'd have some problem with it, unless you are a closet pirate.

U-play is the only thing I'm aware of, as far as I can see.

Being against DRM is not some weird point of view for people to have. History has shown that it hurts legitimate consumers and does nothing to curb piracy. The opposite has been true far less often to the point that they are statistical anomalies.

You're only hurting yourself making accusations like closet pirate. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and it severely weakens your stance. If Denuvo is as invisible as people say, I personally have no issue with it. But the fact that you won't let the idea that people are against DRM go is weird. Not everyone thinks the same as you, and just because their opinion is different doesn't mean it's not well thought out.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Steam is also DRM.

Denuvo seems fine to me. Doesn't do anything bad it seems. Most people say they can't even tell it's there. So what the problem? If it gets cracked or not, not my concern. As long as it doesn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the game. I couldn't care less really.

Bingo. I think some people complain about everything without a real reason.

 

[tential]

CD Projekt has already said that they're no longer going to use DRM for their games. The also have patched out their DRM from the previous witcher games after about a year or two of being released.

The patching out of DRM after a game has been released after a reasonable amount of time is something I wish more devs would do.

I think the majority of AAA games released in the last 10 years or so may not be playable in the future due to the DRM used.

The Witcher 3:

All DLCs free.
No DRM

I may even preorder the game even though I didn't enjoy the Witcher 2 that much (just not my style of game I guess).

When you treat your customers well, you deserve to be treated well. So IMO, I'll get the game and try out The Witcher 3.

 

[futurefields]

How does DRM cause a 5% performance impact?

On what CPU? what does that even mean? an excuse as to why their game runs at a low fps? blame the drm,seems typical

 

[cmdrdredd]

The Witcher 3:

All DLCs free.
No DRM

I may even preorder the game even though I didn't enjoy the Witcher 2 that much (just not my style of game I guess).

When you treat your customers well, you deserve to be treated well. So IMO, I'll get the game and try out The Witcher 3.

If you didn't like their previous game you'll buy the next one because it has no DRM? That makes no sense to me.

I buy games that I think I'll like, I don't buy or choose not to buy based on something that doesn't affect the quality of the game.

 

[tential]

That's what pirates tell themselves I suppose. I know this because I used to pirate games when I was younger. But as I've gotten older I came to realize how damaging piracy can be to the PC game industry, and I stopped it completely.

When you have pirated copies being downloaded more than legal copies, that is a huge problem. And PC gaming has definitely suffered as a result. PC games now cost more than they ever did, because developers are squeezing the paying customers in an effort to make up for lost sales to pirates. Also, AAA PC only titles are now very rare, compared to the glory days before high speed internet made it possible to download games relatively quickly.

And unlike what some people here think, it's not necessarily a matter of money. When I pirated games, it wasn't that I couldn't afford them. The question is, why pay for something when you can get it for free?

There's a guy I know that pirated Assassin's Creed Unity, even though his rig costs at least 3K. If you can afford an expensive setup like that, surely you can afford 50 bucks for a game.

Or maybe he was "trying before buying" you might say? That's just another improbable excuse. Perhaps a small percentage of people will buy the game eventually, but most I'd wager would not. The incentive to do so just isn't there..

People seem to have the false idea that a person who pirates a game, would have purchased the game if it was unable to be pirated.
This has been proven to be false.
The percentage of people who pirated a game, who would have purchased the game if it had been unable to been pirated is extremely low.
This percentage drops even lower when you move out of the US to poorer countries.

If you didn't like their previous game you'll buy the next one because it has no DRM? That makes no sense to me.

I buy games that I think I'll like, I don't buy or choose not to buy based on something that doesn't affect the quality of the game.

I didn't enjoy The Witcher 2. Most of this was due to the HUD itself. I couldn't read anything so I couldn't immerse myself in the game. So I stopped playing it.

The Witcher 3 I'm willing to try and see how they changed the game. The Witcher 2 didn't have anything fundamentally wrong with the game, I simply couldn't get into it since I had to squint to see anything on the HUD from my couch.

 

[BSim500]

How does DRM cause a 5% performance impact?

On what CPU? what does that even mean? an excuse as to why their game runs at a low fps? blame the drm,seems typical

The 5% figure comes from one of the the developers of Lords of the Fallen (one of the three games that uses it, the others being DAI & one of the FIFA games). When asked specifically what impact Denuvo had (irrespective of general game performance) - that's the figure he gave. Someone else asked a Bioware dev on the Bioware forums on Denuvo's performance hit on DAI, and he dodged the question without answering. Denuvo isn't "officially" DRM, however it protects the DRM protected .exe files from being reverse engineered (for cracks) supposedly by constantly shuffling code around in RAM. That overhead is where the performance impact is supposed to lie.

 

[Eric1987]

That's what pirates tell themselves I suppose. I know this because I used to pirate games when I was younger. But as I've gotten older I came to realize how damaging piracy can be to the PC game industry, and I stopped it completely.

When you have pirated copies being downloaded more than legal copies, that is a huge problem. And PC gaming has definitely suffered as a result. PC games now cost more than they ever did, because developers are squeezing the paying customers in an effort to make up for lost sales to pirates. Also, AAA PC only titles are now very rare, compared to the glory days before high speed internet made it possible to download games relatively quickly.

And unlike what some people here think, it's not necessarily a matter of money. When I pirated games, it wasn't that I couldn't afford them. The question is, why pay for something when you can get it for free?

There's a guy I know that pirated Assassin's Creed Unity, even though his rig costs at least 3K. If you can afford an expensive setup like that, surely you can afford 50 bucks for a game.

Or maybe he was "trying before buying" you might say? That's just another improbable excuse. Perhaps a small percentage of people will buy the game eventually, but most I'd wager would not. The incentive to do so just isn't there..

I am a pirate. A huge one. And I would of NEVER bought any games unless I tried them first. You think I would of ever bought inquisition if I never tried dragon age? What about the 4 2k sports games I own? I woulda never bought them in a million years if I didn't pirate them first. So just by my post alone your post is flawed. I don't feel entitled and I feel that most games are highly overpriced for the return in entertainment.





You are admitting you still pirate games.

You cannot talk about that here.

This is the guidelines in which members can talk about it.


http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=27076922&postcount=30


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Revolution 11]

When you have pirated copies being downloaded more than legal copies, that is a huge problem. And PC gaming has definitely suffered as a result. PC games now cost more than they ever did, because developers are squeezing the paying customers in an effort to make up for lost sales to pirates. Also, AAA PC only titles are now very rare, compared to the glory days before high speed internet made it possible to download games relatively quickly.

What does pirating have to do with the cost of the game? Development costs are higher now because of increased expectations on "story" (previous-gen games had less voice-acting, less intricate plots, simpler characters), "graphics" (previous-gen games clearly had less complex assets and less of them), and "marketing" (look at how marketing budgets has inflated over the years).

These are reasons specific to the gaming industry. But also consider that most games are still sold at $60, the same as a decade ago. That is a decade of programmer wage increases and general inflation eating into profits.

Combine both effects and you get a pretty convincing economic reason for the adoption of milking franchises to death, rehashes/remasters/remakes of classic games, Early Access scams, DLC galore, pre-order bonuses, micro-transactions/pay to win, and review embargos/other manipulative marketing.

I argue that all of these are harmful in some way to the consumer in their current form but that is just my opinion.

 

[futurefields]

The 5% figure comes from one of the the developers of Lords of the Fallen (one of the three games that uses it, the others being DAI & one of the FIFA games). When asked specifically what impact Denuvo had (irrespective of general game performance) - that's the figure he gave. Someone else asked a Bioware dev on the Bioware forums on Denuvo's performance hit on DAI, and he dodged the question without answering. Denuvo isn't "officially" DRM, however it protects the DRM protected .exe files from being reverse engineered (for cracks) supposedly by constantly shuffling code around in RAM. That overhead is where the performance impact is supposed to lie.

5% on a 3ghz amd FX or 4.5ghz intel haswell?

the statement is so ambiguous as to be useless

 

[ImpulsE69]

The piece everyone misses is that people that pirate do not care about having the game on day 1, and in many cases, they have the game in hand before it's even released. If a game is not able to be cracked, they don't care, they get another game, they don't go out and buy the game they can't pirate. It becomes like Steam collections where you have so much, but you don't actually play that many of them.

A game 'being pirated more than sales' has no proof of ever happening. Torrent site #'s are not 1:1. People who think this have no idea how piracy works. They see the numbers and think "omg all those could have been sales".

They want to curb the first 2 week issue they should probably spend more money on looking internally to who's leaking their games out so early or spend that money on development. Piracy has long been a crutch and excuse for bad sales when the reality is, good games (with good word of mouth) do phenominally well.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I didn't enjoy The Witcher 2. Most of this was due to the HUD itself. I couldn't read anything so I couldn't immerse myself in the game. So I stopped playing it.

The Witcher 3 I'm willing to try and see how they changed the game. The Witcher 2 didn't have anything fundamentally wrong with the game, I simply couldn't get into it since I had to squint to see anything on the HUD from my couch.

Might be worth waiting to see if it still has this issue for you.

 

[BSim500]

5% on a 3ghz amd FX or 4.5ghz intel haswell?

the statement is so ambiguous as to be useless

You'll have to ask the developers to clarify that. Thing is - they're not very forthcoming about the negative side of multi-layered DRM... :hmm: