|
|
|
|
|
by ajg1977
5948 days ago
|
|
That's quite an assertion - care to back it up with your reasons? FWIW I've written similar "time bomb" crack prevention techniques that were used in a couple of reasonably high-profile PC games (e.g. 500k to several million copies sold). Some of the strategies were inspired by this article when it was originally published in gdmag, others were based on certain benefits of being a PC title. What helped a lot was that we had a surprisingly sensible publisher who acknowledged that safe disc prevention was (at the time, I'm not sure about now) virtually worthless and allowed us to ship without it. This gave us the benefit of knowing ahead of time the hashes for various areas of our binary and being able to use and layer those into different checks. While non of these were crack-proof (or even close to it!) they did serve their purpose and prevent any zero-day or launch window warez releases - which as the author states in this article is about the best you can really hope for. |
|
Example: I never bought Settlers (2? 3? - the one that exchanged production of pigs and gold when you were playing a copy) - I've seen it and thought it's just so buggy it's not worth getting. Learnt about the copy protection a lot later.
I know many people who buy games this way - mostly grownups who want to have some fun once in a while but aren't interested in gaming every day. They also earn and spend their own money, so usually they're more ok with buying a good game than teens who need to request it from parents / buy for allowance / ....
I've always seen advanced copy protection as games producers shooting themselves in the foot. But maybe I'm just not part of the market that makes a difference for producers. Do you remember if this was an issue at all?