Steam installeren
inloggen
|
taal
简体中文 (Chinees, vereenvoudigd)
繁體中文 (Chinees, traditioneel)
日本語 (Japans)
한국어 (Koreaans)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgaars)
Čeština (Tsjechisch)
Dansk (Deens)
Deutsch (Duits)
English (Engels)
Español-España (Spaans - Spanje)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spaans - Latijns-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Grieks)
Français (Frans)
Italiano (Italiaans)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Hongaars)
Norsk (Noors)
Polski (Pools)
Português (Portugees - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Braziliaans-Portugees)
Română (Roemeens)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Fins)
Svenska (Zweeds)
Türkçe (Turks)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamees)
Українська (Oekraïens)
Een vertaalprobleem melden
Pretty sure there is a cracked linux version, and a Voksi bypass can't vouch for the quality of the latter because not many mention it.
Wait... Did Voksi update the bypass after Denuvo and Valve patched the exploit?
Yes that Voksi, the guy that did the original bypass for DOOM. That exploit was patched and I haven't heard his name regarding Denuvo since.
Do you perhaps know if the Total War: Warhammer bypass is still functional?
EDIT, i mean... battlefield 1...
Are you 100% sure? as in you can play it right now?
Because FitGirl doesn't have a repack because it is 'uncracked', the fake Skidrow's site has a version whose comment section is filled with doesn't work and virus. Crack Watch doesn't say bypassed like Fifa 16, Gears of War UE, Quantum Break and Forza Horizon.
We're only talking about Denuvo games, from what little research I have done Total War: Warhammer is only functional on the Voksi bypass if you acquired it during the period the exploit was active.
So for anyone who acquired the game within 4 days of the Voksi Bypass going live have a functioning cracked version of the game, every other pirate is unable to acquire the game for free.
Edit:
We are going in circles, until someone else is willing to confirm that they're tried the bypassed version of Total War: Warhammer recently.
But no! Denuvo is somehow different of course!
The post was alot longer than this snippet, and with context the implication was simply that Denuvo has engaged with the public before, and could possibly do so again if consumer rights in Digital Distribution is discussed in a civil manner.
Not with specific publisher or developer that uses that tool AND is a customer to Denuvo AND can actually influence development of said tool.
The fact that Denuvo Software felt inclined to shoot down rumours of a refund policy and discuss the concept Anti-Tamper to the media is them wanting the average gamer to understand how Denuvo is different from actual DRM systems. Denuvo telling the public that they shouldn't be concerned about performance and additional software is not exactly normal behaviour for middleware developers, you'd normally tell your (actual) customers that on your website. Denuvo Software is well aware of the core gaming market's sentiments regarding SecuRom so this approach they are taking is very much towards improving their public image.
It seems that this middleware developer is aware of the effect they have on the final product and IS taking measures to improve their product and converse with the public.
So it they are willing to adapt their software to be more gamer friendly why not ask them if they have safeguards? its beneficial to their public image of both themselves and publishers.
That's what the Denuvo performance thing was all about. To be fair, there was precedent for that accusation, in that a similar product called VMProtect is not self-hosting. It decrypts the executable, spits it out to disk and then launches it. Denuvo does decryption in-place without spawning a new process or writing anything to disk. The consumer definitely should not need to know any of these specifics, but when defending yourself from accusations that apply to a competitor's product only, this happens.
The torrent protocol facilitates piracy but that was not the intention of its creation.
Denuvo Anti-Tamper directly affects the game by forcing another authentication stage that requires a functioning server and internet connection. Vastly different situations.
You're saying they shouldn't care that their product can cause issues for the consumer of the publisher's game.
I'm am saying they could (maybe even should) care that Denuvo Anti-Tamper does so. It could be part of their service to Publishers to remove their anti-tamper layer in the event that they no longer support it, and consumers would benefit as a result.
Denuvo's Software's actions thus far have proven they at least want to appear to care, something you seem to ignore. The fact that they bothered to counter misinformation spreading amongst a consumer forum board about refunds is proof enough that on some level they care about what people are saying about them. It is a propaganda war for the most part, where even developers like Overkill Software inherently dislike DRM to the point in which they generalise.
Its not really a right and wrong situation that you are treating it as. Its a matter of whether or not Denuvo cares and whether or not they should do something about it, and in that case there are events that correlate to both possibilities.
Despite what Aelxander is claiming in his original post, Denuvo neither prevents debugging, nor prevents reverse engineering, nor prevents modification. Denuvo's done a piss-poor job explaining in that one poorly written paragraph that Denuvo's reach is limited to the DRM code that it protects. I'd go as far as to say that entire pargaph is invalid and it does nobody any good to repeat it :P
Denuvo KNOWS they operate in the domain of games, they don't run the entire freaking game in a virtual machine, that would kill performance. They also do not resort to finite activations, that would prevent upgrading hardware, which happens more in the games industry than any other market. They're actively trying to produce middle-ware that applies to and makes as little inconvenience as possible for gamers by eliminating problems with past schemes and fixing problems with existing ones.
They also even allow offline keys, which undermines the entire platform they're trying to build, but is necessary in some markets.