Denuvo is Removedo

[Dextrose]

Time to celebrate

[delta]

It's been replaced by Capcom's own DRM called Enigma.

[bb10]

Originally posted by delta:

It's been replaced by Capcom's own DRM called Enigma.

It does not belong to Capcom. It's some russian DRM. https://www.enigmaprotector.com/

[Sunsetter]

Originally posted by delta:

It's been replaced by Capcom's own DRM called Enigma.

Cant be worse than cancerous Denuvo

[bb10]

Originally posted by Samael:

Cant be worse than cancerous Denuvo

Yes it can:

• Starforce.
  
• Securom/Tages, which at first had non-renewable limited activations. After x number of activations, you basically no longer own the game. At the time people were also dismissing this criticism by saying things like "How many times do you reinstall Windows?" and "How many times do you buy a new PC? 5 installations should last you a lifetime!".
  
• The infamous Always online DRM from Ubisoft, where, if you got disconnected during play, the game would unceremoniously kick you back to the main menu with an error.
  
• GFWL, which at first had 10-20 activations after which you had to buy the game again.
  
• etc.

What do we know about the new DRM? Nothing. So I don't see how you can make that claim.

[Hayatemaru]

Enigma is enabledma
Enligma

[Syzzle]

Whatever it is doesn't matter, it's already cracked.

[William Shakesman]

Originally posted by bb10:

Originally posted by Samael:

Cant be worse than cancerous Denuvo

Yes it can:

• Starforce.
  
• Securom/Tages, which at first had non-renewable limited activations. After x number of activations, you basically no longer own the game. At the time people were also dismissing this criticism by saying things like "How many times do you reinstall Windows?" and "How many times do you buy a new PC? 5 installations should last you a lifetime!".
  
• The infamous Always online DRM from Ubisoft, where, if you got disconnected during play, the game would unceremoniously kick you back to the main menu with an error.
  
• GFWL, which at first had 10-20 activations after which you had to buy the game again.
  
• etc.

What do we know about the new DRM? Nothing. So I don't see how you can make that claim.

The reason ANY of us hate Denuvo is because we have heard about the intrusive nature of it and performance impacts it provides. The fact that we know nothing about this DRM means nobody has seen fit to raise hell about it, which I think is a good argument for it being likely benign.

I UNDERSTAND wanting to be cautious, and I also understand acknowledging that the game/tech/DRM commentary/industry is far dumber and less interested in discovering interesting data or knowledge these days, so it is less likely we will ever know important stuff. The math on both sides of the argument is very tough but I honestly think you cannot simply assume every single DRM module is as intrusive or annoying as the old hated names, especially if you can find stuff on the game literally the day the Denuvo is gone. For it to a speedbump AND ALSO intrusive would be the biggest waste of money out there.

[Under there]

thats cool
not buying

[eq12345]

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

The reason ANY of us hate Denuvo is because we have heard about the intrusive nature of it and performance impacts it provides. The fact that we know nothing about this DRM means nobody has seen fit to raise hell about it, which I think is a good argument for it being likely benign.

Yes, exactly like these benign zero day vulnerabilities, about which you hear only after all your data have been leaked.

No, I don't want Denuvo to be removed, only to install another black box with admin rights on my machine. If you have blind faith in people you don't know and have never met - go on, give them unlimited access to your PC, that's your right.
If it is wise, might be another question.

[Hayatemaru]

Originally posted by eq12345:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

The reason ANY of us hate Denuvo is because we have heard about the intrusive nature of it and performance impacts it provides. The fact that we know nothing about this DRM means nobody has seen fit to raise hell about it, which I think is a good argument for it being likely benign.

Yes, exactly like these benign zero day vulnerabilities, about which you hear only after all your data have been leaked.

No, I don't want Denuvo to be removed, only to install another black box with admin rights on my machine. If you have blind faith in people you don't know and have never met - go on, give them unlimited access to your PC, that's your right.
If it is wise, might be another question.

I'm half convinced people just don't know what they're talking about.

DRM, in the context of this game, doesn't have admin rights. You can tell this because in order for it to have admin rights it has to pop up a UAC dialog box every time you launch the game. That's just basic windows knowledge.

While I agree removing one DRM to add two extra DRMs is bad, let's not pretend to know more than we do now

[eq12345]

Originally posted by Hayatemaru:

DRM, in the context of this game, doesn't have admin rights. You can tell this because in order for it to have admin rights it has to pop up a UAC dialog box every time you launch the game. That's just basic windows knowledge.

That's not how Windows works. It is sufficient to give Admin rights once, during installation. This installation can install services that use system rights, without UAC popping up every time. Most DRMs are implemented as services, and services run with system rights. Forever. Which means they can use your whole machine to their liking.

Looks like you don't know what windows programs can do without your knowledge. I suggest you to google "windows services".
Another interesting thing: Start "msconfig" on your machine, go to the "services" tab, and use the checkmark to hide all microsoft services. What's left is the services that roam your machine freely, without your knowledge and maybe without your consent.

[Hayatemaru]

Originally posted by eq12345:

Originally posted by Hayatemaru:

DRM, in the context of this game, doesn't have admin rights. You can tell this because in order for it to have admin rights it has to pop up a UAC dialog box every time you launch the game. That's just basic windows knowledge.

That's not how Windows works. It is sufficient to give Admin rights once, during installation. This installation can install services that use system rights, without UAC popping up every time. Most DRMs are implemented as services, and services run with system rights.

You see this during driver installation: Every time you update your windows drivers, UAC pops up. But once the drivers are installed, they work with system rights without UAC. Or do you see UAC pop up every time you use your WiFi, for example?

Looks like you don't know what windows programs can do without your knowledge.

No, that's a different function of Windows. YOU don't know what things mean.

A service is not an app. They're separate. An app installing a service means the service is an automation to some degree. If the service is not used by an app it can't be running.

By the way, I don't have a single service for Denuvo on my PC, and I've installed games that use Denuvo Anti-Tamper. Why is that? Because DRM inherently doesn't contain ring 0 access. Anti-Cheat is what uses this to detect apps that modify active memory.

Again, these are all your knowledge gaps, not mine. The fact you conflated app software with services, and mistook what DRM and Anti-Cheat do, is your own problem. Not mine.

[eq12345]

Originally posted by Hayatemaru:

If the service is not used by an app it can't be running.

That's not right. Services on autostart are always running, with or without the app that needs them. Maybe you are running your own version of windows, that runs different from anybody elses. Congratulations and merry christmas.

[Hayatemaru]

Originally posted by eq12345:

Originally posted by Hayatemaru:

If the service is not used by an app it can't be running.

That's not right. Services on autostart are always running, with or without the app that needs them. Maybe you are running your own version of windows, that runs different from anybody elses. Congratulations and merry christmas.

Not at all. I've worked with services before when installing and utilizing SQL Server. I've all too often received an error manually starting a service claiming it started and stopped immediately because no app was utilizing it.

I'm not running anything unique. Windows 10 Home and Windows Server 2019 in both instances.

This discussion could go much farther without your condescending sarcasm. This is what you guys call "civil" here huh?

[eq12345]

Originally posted by Hayatemaru:

Originally posted by eq12345:

That's not right. Services on autostart are always running, with or without the app that needs them. Maybe you are running your own version of windows, that runs different from anybody elses. Congratulations and merry christmas.

Not at all. I've worked with services before when installing and utilizing SQL Server. I've all too often received an error manually starting a service claiming it started and stopped immediately because no app was utilizing it.

I'm not running anything unique. Windows 10 Home and Windows Server 2019 in both instances.

This discussion could go much farther without your condescending sarcasm. This is what you guys call "civil" here huh?

Services are basically just apps that are utilized by other apps, but run in system context. With full system rights, if not configured otherwise. I've developed myself many Windows services over the years. And no, services on Autostart (in general - there are exceptions) keep running. Don't know how SQL server works (I'm using MySQL for my software development), but in general services on Autostart run until you shutdown the system. I think your SQL server service stopped not "because no app was utilizing it", but because you got your dependencies wrong (some services require other services running first). That's the reason for 99% of services that fail their initial start.

But this all leads much too far. Services were only mentioned by me to show that one installation with admin rights is sufficient to install background software that permanently has full system access without your knowledge (a fact you denied).