If the developer adds another check to see if the user tampered with the game, then the cracker can just disable that. If the program does a simple check to see if the user should be allowed to play the game, then a cracker can find this point in the game’s instructions and modify it. ![]() The problem is that this sort of thing is trivial to defeat. If the user is unable to prove they own the software, it can refuse to run. These days, it generally means having the software check with some remote server to see if the user has a legitimate license to use the product. In the old days, this would be something like asking the user to type in a phrase obtained from a hard-to-photocopy manual. The Early Days of DRMįor decades, developers have been building anti-piracy systems into their games. Whenever Denuvo comes up in conversation, there’s always a little side-argument where someone feels a need to explain that “Denuvo is not DRM.” This is technically true in the sense that a combination lock is not a safe, but this sort of pedantry isn’t really productive and doesn’t help consumers understand what Denuvo is and why they should care. So how has that claim held up over the years? At the time I made the case that Denuvo had been successful enough to prove that most of the publisher’s claims about piracy were false. ![]() ![]() It’s been over four years since the first game protected by Denuvo appeared on the scene.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |