By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Quite possibly the worst DRM and most ridiculous idea ever

WilliamWatts said:
Katilian said:

Smaller games will still be cracked exactly like they do now. Companies don't come up with unique solutions for every game they produce, and smaller companies can't afford to go to the effort of producing complex anti-piracy solutions so usually end up buying the larger generic solutions anyway (or go with whatever their publisher is pushing). Once these solutions are cracked, the effort required for applying it to newer games is minor. This removes the window you are talking about, which I personally think does little to promote sales, as many (most?) of those who pirate will never buy the game anyway.

While copy protection might have been used to try to fight piracy in the past, modern copy protection (or more specifically DRM) is about restricting used game sales and tracking user usage. This is why game companies want single player games to phone home every time they are played.

This is an Ubisoft DRM system. So my guess is all Ubisoft PC titles will use it. Therefore its not applicable to anything outside of games Ubisoft publishes themselves.

Given the drop in price most PC games experience, buying used and selling used is of little help as the new prices are often the same or cheaper than those of a used copy. It also remains to be seen whether the key is transferable or not.

The key is one hundred percent non-transferable, since each unique key is tied into your Ubisoft account, which is itself non-transferable.



Around the Network
WilliamWatts said:

You're assuming they aren't familiar with that method to counter-act this type of system because????

Because any methods to counter-act this exist in the code that is being modified anyway (which is why DRM is fundamentally flawed).

Here is a basic runthrough of how the crackers will get around "remote" saving:

1) Trace the packets between the client and the server. If what is sent to the server is the same as what is returned (i.e the client produces the save then just sends it to the server), then all I need to do is get the client to connect to my local server which saves off the packet and sends it back when asked. This is probably all they will actually be doing.

2) If the packets differ, figure out if its some sort of encryption.

2a) If it is encrypted, remove the encryption and decryption algorithms from the client and get it sending the raw save to my local server.

3) If the return packet differs (after decryption if required) then look at how the client processes this packet and map the original packets contents to the return packet.

4) If keen, they can also try and modify the client to write directly to a file instead, however the server method would allow a more generic solution for other games using the same system.

If there are any mechanics to detect modification beyond the already modified functionality they shall just be removed/modified anyway.



Khuutra said:
WilliamWatts said:

You don't need a CD in the drive to play. So never a CD vs sometimes a wireless connection not being working at precisely the same time you want to save a game.

....I use Daemon to mount virtual images of my game CDs anyway

You said this would be a good thing for players

How does that make this a good thing for players? GOG doesn't exactly need a CD check either but they don't shut down my game every time I disconnect

Now you don't have to use Daemon.

In any case the proportion of people whom would have a dying DVD drive vastly outnumber the proportion of people with a terrible internet link. I say terrible as in impossible or close to it. If you can post here you can use their servers to save the game.

It doesn't kick you out, you simply can't save the game until it reconnects. So no connection no save, connection you can save. It also means you can continue your saved game from anywhere.



WilliamWatts said:
vlad321 said:
WilliamWatts said:

Its not the same as simply logging in to a server to authenticate. A portion of the game has to be run off the server for it to function properly. In this case its the ability to save. So whilst the system can tolerate an internet outage you cannot treat the game as any more than a demo unless someone manages to put the save functionality back into the game code.

No it's false. It's actually very simple to crack. You just make the game think that your own computer is the server. It's been done before, it's not like online authentication hasn't been cracked before. Trust me, the pirated version will be infinitely superior to the bought copy, they jsut fucked themselves over. Also the fact they are selling a agme at $60 on the PC is laughable.

OT:

Making of Game: $15 million

Developing DRM: $3 million

Pirated copy better than retail: Priceless.

You're assuming they aren't familiar with that method to counter-act this type of system because????

Because there IS no way to counteract this. You do realize the code of the game is RIGHT THERE ON THE PC? Nothing they can do will amke something hack proof. Just like there is nothing to make your computer safe if the hardware falsl in the hands of a hacker, your software is automatically unsafe the moemnt its files hit another person's computer. With PC games that's all the time. There is no way to stop hacking, none.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

WilliamWatts said:

Now you don't have to use Daemon.

In any case the proportion of people whom would have a dying DVD drive vastly outnumber the proportion of people with a terrible internet link. I say terrible as in impossible or close to it. If you can post here you can use their servers to save the game.

It doesn't kick you out, you simply can't save the game until it reconnects. So no connection no save, connection you can save. It also means you can continue your saved game from anywhere.

The lack of a CD check isn't actually a positive! The fact that they aren't using one kind of DRM is not a benefit when there is a net loss in terms of convenience!

You are not explaining how this helps me, the consumer. I don't think that you can.



Around the Network
Katilian said:
WilliamWatts said:

You're assuming they aren't familiar with that method to counter-act this type of system because????

Because any methods to counter-act this exist in the code that is being modified anyway (which is why DRM is fundamentally flawed).

Here is a basic runthrough of how the crackers will get around "remote" saving:

1) Trace the packets between the client and the server. If what is sent to the server is the same as what is returned (i.e the client produces the save then just sends it to the server), then all I need to do is get the client to connect to my local server which saves off the packet and sends it back when asked. This is probably all they will actually be doing.

2) If the packets differ, figure out if its some sort of encryption.

2a) If it is encrypted, remove the encryption and decryption algorithms from the client and get it sending the raw save to my local server.

3) If the return packet differs (after decryption if required) then look at how the client processes this packet and map the original packets contents to the return packet.

4) If keen, they can also try and modify the client to write directly to a file instead, however the server method would allow a more generic solution for other games using the same system.

If there are any mechanics to detect modification beyond the already modified functionality they shall just be removed/modified anyway.

Public Key encryption of any quality would take at least a month of solid effort to crack. By that time the damage typically done by piracy would be averted.

Obviously they would use encryption.

Obviously they would ensure that the data recieved back from the server was not identical to the data sent.

Not every packet sent would have to be relevant, but it would waste their time making them figure out each one.

The victory is not perfect protection. The victory is in if they can slow down piracy for a few weeks and let themselves sell their products without the need to compete with pirated material. In addition to this, if the effort required is substantial enough then smaller releases would never be cracked due to the effort required unless the the release groups can develop a method which is portable to all games using this methodology.



WilliamWatts said:
Katilian said:
WilliamWatts said:

You're assuming they aren't familiar with that method to counter-act this type of system because????

Because any methods to counter-act this exist in the code that is being modified anyway (which is why DRM is fundamentally flawed).

Here is a basic runthrough of how the crackers will get around "remote" saving:

1) Trace the packets between the client and the server. If what is sent to the server is the same as what is returned (i.e the client produces the save then just sends it to the server), then all I need to do is get the client to connect to my local server which saves off the packet and sends it back when asked. This is probably all they will actually be doing.

2) If the packets differ, figure out if its some sort of encryption.

2a) If it is encrypted, remove the encryption and decryption algorithms from the client and get it sending the raw save to my local server.

3) If the return packet differs (after decryption if required) then look at how the client processes this packet and map the original packets contents to the return packet.

4) If keen, they can also try and modify the client to write directly to a file instead, however the server method would allow a more generic solution for other games using the same system.

If there are any mechanics to detect modification beyond the already modified functionality they shall just be removed/modified anyway.

Public Key encryption of any quality would take at least a month of solid effort to crack. By that time the damage typically done by piracy would be averted.

Obviously they would use encryption.

Obviously they would ensure that the data recieved back from the server was not identical to the data sent.

Not every packet sent would have to be relevant, but it would waste their time making them figure out each one.

The victory is not perfect protection. The victory is in if they can slow down piracy for a few weeks and let themselves sell their products without the need to compete with pirated material. In addition to this, if the effort required is substantial enough then smaller releases would never be cracked due to the effort required unless the the release groups can develop a method which is portable to all games using this methodology.

The thing is they will get rid of the public key shit before it even gets to that. Again, they can just point the game at your own computer, it's just a few lines of code. Also encryption takes time, something you cant afford/



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Khuutra said:
WilliamWatts said:

Now you don't have to use Daemon.

In any case the proportion of people whom would have a dying DVD drive vastly outnumber the proportion of people with a terrible internet link. I say terrible as in impossible or close to it. If you can post here you can use their servers to save the game.

It doesn't kick you out, you simply can't save the game until it reconnects. So no connection no save, connection you can save. It also means you can continue your saved game from anywhere.

The lack of a CD check isn't actually a positive! The fact that they aren't using one kind of DRM is not a benefit when there is a net loss in terms of convenience!

You are not explaining how this helps me, the consumer. I don't think that you can.

You the consumer are atypical. Im talking about the public at large here not a small sample of people with spotty wireless controllers.



vlad321 said:
WilliamWatts said:

You're assuming they aren't familiar with that method to counter-act this type of system because????

Because there IS no way to counteract this. You do realize the code of the game is RIGHT THERE ON THE PC? Nothing they can do will amke something hack proof. Just like there is nothing to make your computer safe if the hardware falsl in the hands of a hacker, your software is automatically unsafe the moemnt its files hit another person's computer. With PC games that's all the time. There is no way to stop hacking, none.

Not all of the code is right there on the PC. This makes it harder as you'd have to figure out what the code which is out of the hackers hands does.



vlad321 said:

The thing is they will get rid of the public key shit before it even gets to that. Again, they can just point the game at your own computer, it's just a few lines of code. Also encryption takes time, something you cant afford/

Encrypting a few hundred kilobytes of data for time insensitive data is not significant.