gives money to a company willing to use denuvo on its customers
oh no, it's the consequences of my actions!
I wish gamers as a collective weren't so weak willed and actually stood up to this shit.
this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
62 points (100.0% liked)
CrackWatch
3388 readers
15 users here now
IF YOU ARE NEW TO THIS FORUM, PLEASE READ THIS POST >>>>The Beginner's Guide<<<< IT WILL TAKE 2 MINUTES MAX, AND IT WILL ANSWER MOST OF YOUR QUESTIONS
Welcome to CrackWatch, a piracy news forum dedicated to informing the public about the latest cracks and bypasses.
To get live announcements of the latest releases, follow our Twitter
Rules
- No question threads. Read the beginners guide.
- Don't spam or post non-related posts. This includes NSFW.
- Do not use link shorteners
- Don't be rude, racist or sexist
- Linking directly to or requesting cracked games and software is not allowed.
- Follow the Posting Guideline
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Many of them likely don’t even know what Denuvo is nevermind what games utilize it.
I never know a game uses Denovu until I want to pirate it and can't find any torrents because it's not cracked.
Considering how awful I've seen anti-cheat discussions on Steam and Xbox go I really don't have much hope for those people's ability to unite together against something like this. Oh and in case people try and say that anti-cheat and DRM are different things, that is true, but also not really, they're both software designed to restrict the things that a user can do with a game they have bought, the only difference is that anti-cheat is way more accepted, and the community is willing to witch-hunt and slander people who don't accept it. Also I've seen cases of Anti-cheats in singleplayer games being used as a sort of anti-tamper DRM, so they're really not that different.
Anti-cheat makes a lot of sense in certain cases. Multiplayer, for instance, and even online coop. The moment you’re able to influence someone else’s experience, anti-cheat makes sense.
Though I’d argue it should be optional for “private” experiences, like private servers.
The problem is that basically any anti-cheat that isn't server side and is installed locally on the machine is in one way or another a rootkit (especially the ring 0 ones), and because their purpose is obfuscation they often do more than they say they do and their operators have no accountability, we can't, and shouldn't trust them. Server side ones make sense and I don't have any issues with those, as those can't affect the host machine (except due to vulnerabilities).
Though I’d argue it should be optional for “private” experiences, like private servers.
I'm a big proponent for decentralized online play where the servers aren't based on the company which has a desire to make money off you (the whole reason they're trying to put rootkits in people's computers). Especially after all the shit around online games terminating their services and becoming unplayable, for games with decentralized online play and matchtaking services this basically wouldn't happen, sure a game could become unpopular but even if there were no servers for a game like that, one could still start up a server for their friends to play on together, these games never really die.
LOL