General News - Denuvo DRM on the Rise

Originally Posted by sakichop
You don't know what they make off those seven. Is it a flat fee? Is it based on the sales of the game? Is there a payment in perpetuity? Without knowing how it's set up you just can't know.

Also it's more clients which leads to more games. Especially when those clients are big names like Ubisoft and EA. You know they like drm I don't see them stop using it as long as it continues to work.

I get the increasing feeling that we are both wasting our time though,neither of us are going to soften our position but I am off all week and a bit bored so whatever.

The only trends being set by EA and Ubisoft are what not to do. EA and Ubisoft are notorious for alienating their customers and for their lack of candor.

Great product endorsement -- "Denuvo, used by gaming companies most hated by gamers. Just try our Denuvo product and you too can be on the road to destroying your own previously successful franchise."

__

Originally Posted by RPGFool
The web is chock full of CPU reviews that compare CPU performance by comparing game performance on different CPUs. And according to those reviews CPU performance can and often does make significant differences in game performance.

Maybe you don't care how well your game runs so long as it runs ok. If so you are not alone. But I can assure you that a significant percentage of CPU buyers and game buyers want to achieve the best performance and that CPUs do make a demonstrable difference here.

As to GPU performance, the GPU relies on the number of simultaneous cycles of data conversion per given time. If something interferes with that you get a negative impact. So anything that interferes with efficiency of of the game exe file can clearly impact the downstream GPU that receives and processes the data fed to it.

Now, whether there a significant negative from denuvo on any given system and game is a different question altogether. For whatever reason, denuvo has never given any data on this. And that is, simply put, suspicious.

__

If you have a very good graphics card and run in not too high resolution and you have a slower CPU, yes you might run into the situation that the CPU is the bottleneck for the FPS. This would typically happen at higher FPS rates though, and if it is indeed CPU limited and using up all threads not leaving any thread for Denuvo, and you have the worst case scenario of 5-9 % CPU load being taken by Denuvo. It might make 2-3 FPS difference. But there is a lot of if's and but's and will only affect a very small amount of the users in that case.

Originally Posted by RPGFool
The only trends being set by EA and Ubisoft are what not to do. EA and Ubisoft are notorious for alienating their customers and for their lack of candor.

Great product endorsement -- "Denuvo, used by gaming companies most hated by gamers. Just try our Denuvo product and you too can be on the road to destroying your own previously successful franchise."

__

Yes, having 2 top 10 earners in video games sales will definitely hurt them.lol

Uggh 3 more pages since my last post…

The thing is, Denuvo basically works as intended. It protected products from being pirated for a month or in some cases much more. It'll also protect people from cheaters in MMOs.
And it's here to stay.

One suspects it caused some performance issues on 10 years old PC? Buy a new rig.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
If you have a very good graphics card and run in not too high resolution and you have a slower CPU, yes you might run into the situation that the CPU is the bottleneck for the FPS. This would typically happen at higher FPS rates though, and if it is indeed CPU limited and using up all threads not leaving any thread for Denuvo, and you have the worst case scenario of 5-9 % CPU load being taken by Denuvo. It might make 2-3 FPS difference. But there is a lot of if's and but's and will only affect a very small amount of the users in that case.

Your beliefs simply do not correspond to real world, real testing, performance of CPUs on gaming rigs even when comparing only top of the line CPUs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/d…and-i5-4690k/5

__

Originally Posted by joxer
Uggh 3 more pages since my last post…

The thing is, Denuvo basically works as intended. It protected products from being pirated for a month or in some cases much more. It'll also protect people from cheaters in MMOs.
And it's here to stay.

One suspects it caused some performance issues on 10 years old PC? Buy a new rig.

Use of Denuvo is minor -- Seven games in 2015 -- Gamers don't trust it. A large chunk of the gamer community believe based on experience that Denuvo harms game performance.

Your off the cuff analysis of impact on game performance as well as your prediction of Denuvo's staying power, are speculation without reason.

And btw the top performing game companies like Bethesda and CD Projekt are focusing on promoting higher game sales rather than focusing in preventing losses of a small portion of mediocre sales. The former approach is what actually works, and is what is actually here to stay.

__

Originally Posted by RPGFool
Your beliefs simply do not correspond to real world, real testing, performance of CPUs on gaming rigs even when comparing only top of the line CPUs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/d…and-i5-4690k/5

__

Thanks for providing a link proving my point, saved me some time.

as long as Xcom 2 does not use denuvo I don't care

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Thanks for providing a link proving my point, saved me some time.

That just means you are biased or misinterpreting the reported data. This data unequivocally shows that performance differences among top of the line CPUs make a difference far exceeding "2-3 fps" in some games even though you claimed that 2-3 fps was the greatest impact that denuvo's CPU slowdown could possibly cause in any case.

Gamers won't be fooled by baseless denials and double speak. There's obviously a reason that denuvo's makers are hiding all information on how denuvo impacts gamers' games and computers.

Denuvo needs to comes clean and give consumers actual data on what its DRM is doing to their games and to their computers. Otherwise companies who force denuvo on their customers will likely see their own sales crippled.

__

Originally Posted by RPGFool
That just means you are biased or misinterpreting the reported data. This data unequivocally shows that performance differences among top of the line CPUs make a difference far exceeding "2-3 fps" in some games even though you claimed that 2-3 fps was the greatest impact that denuvo's CPU slowdown could possibly cause in any case.

Gamers won't be fooled by baseless denials and double speak. There's obviously a reason that denuvo's makers are hiding all information on how denuvo impacts gamers' games and computers.

Denuvo needs to comes clean and give consumers actual data on what its DRM is doing to their games and to their computers. Otherwise companies who force denuvo on their customers will likely see their own sales crippled.

__

Well, let me enlighten you if you do not understand the graphs you yourself posted. I have to say I found such a things very amusing, when people post proof contradicting themselves. Even in a situation where you have SLI graphics card, which is a very uncommon setup, the graphs you posted proves how little the CPU matters.

So just to make this clear enough so even you'll be able to understand this let us take the worst case scenario:

F1 2013 minimum frame rates, you have a dual SLI setup of topend graphic cards. The difference between the I3-4360 and the I7-379K is about 19 FPS. That equlas to about 19% difference for a 100 FPS game. Can you follow so far ?

Now let us look a the performance difference between an I3-4360 and an I7-4790K, The I3 has two cores at 3.7 GHZ. The I7-379K runs at 4.7 GHZ and has 4 cores. Now we can calculate very very conservatively just so even you would understand this.

Let us say that theI3-4360 is just 60% slower than the I7-4790K, this is not true, but anyhow let us say that. It means that a 60% slowdown results in a 19% FPS loss.

now let us see what that gives is in FPS loss per %. 19 / 60 = 0,316 FPS loss per %.

Now let us assume Denuvo gives a very high 9% loss in CPU speed. 9 * 0,316 = 2,84 FPS.

So in the absolute worst case with every odds tipped in your favor and a SLI graphic card setup you still get less than a 3 FPS loss. Do you understand above or I need to explain in even more detail ?

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Do you understand above or I need to explain in even more detail ?

You need to explain it to me actually.
It's anno 2016 and someone is playing recent games on i3 machines?

I'll leave aside the specific claims of performance degradation, as that seems pretty difficult to pin down, and prone to speculation.

What I would say, is that if I were creating a computer program of any sort, and my main concern were to ensure it ran as well and reliably as possible for my customers, I sure as hell wouldn't introduce an arbitrary and extremely complex process that complicated the code with all sorts of arcane encryption tasks.

That is the key point for me - I can't know how badly the DRM is affecting my game, and in what ways, but it certainly isn't improving it for me, and it's running code that treats me as an untrusted party on my own computer. I don't much care for that, and I support CDPR and GOG all the way.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Well, let me enlighten you if you do not understand the graphs you yourself posted. I have to say I found such a things very amusing, when people post proof contradicting themselves. Even in a situation where you have SLI graphics card, which is a very uncommon setup, the graphs you posted proves how little the CPU matters.

So just to make this clear enough so even you'll be able to understand this let us take the worst case scenario:

F1 2013 minimum frame rates, you have a dual SLI setup of topend graphic cards. The difference between the I3-4360 and the I7-379K is about 19 FPS. That equlas to about 19% difference for a 100 FPS game. Can you follow so far ?

Now let us look a the performance difference between an I3-4360 and an I7-4790K, The I3 has two cores at 3.7 GHZ. The I7-379K runs at 4.7 GHZ and has 4 cores. Now we can calculate very very conservatively just so even you would understand this.

Let us say that theI3-4360 is just 60% slower than the I7-4790K, this is not true, but anyhow let us say that. It means that a 60% slowdown results in a 19% FPS loss.

now let us see what that gives is in FPS loss per %. 19 / 60 = 0,316 FPS loss per %.

Now let us assume Denuvo gives a very high 9% loss in CPU speed. 9 * 0,316 = 2,84 FPS.

So in the absolute worst case with every odds tipped in your favor and a SLI graphic card setup you still get less than a 3 FPS loss. Do you understand above or I need to explain in even more detail ?

The short answer is your analysis requires numerous steps of "let us assume" that aren't supported in logic or fact and your analysis thus fails.

Your analysis 'assumes' that the greatest impact denuvo could possibly have on a processor would be 9%. But there is no data published anywhere that supports your assumption.

Your analysis also 'assumes' a linear correlation between processor performance decrease and processor speed capacity even though that assumption is already disproved by the original data (The Intel Core I3 has 80% of the performance of the I7 even though you grossly overestimate the Core I3 capacity at 60% of the Core I7 capacity).

High end CPU FPS performance is obviously non-linearly disproportionately more costly than low end CPU FPS performance. Hence loss of high end CPU capacity should also have a non-linearly disproportionately larger impact on FPS performance than you 'assume' based on your simplistic and unrealistic analysis.

CPUs only perform optimally under optimum conditions. A small heat increase, for example, can have a devastating impact on a CPU already operating at near maximum capacity. Crippling any CPU by adding constant interference and increased CPU demands as per denuvo, will likely have a similar devastating impact on CPU performance.

Again, if denuvo is as harmless as you and other proponents claim, then denuvo only needs to release data showing that. So long as denuvo hides the actual data the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that the actual data doesn't support denuvo's claims.

__

Originally Posted by RPGFool
The short answer is your analysis requires numerous steps of "let us assume" that aren't supported in logic or fact and your analysis thus fails.

Your analysis 'assumes' that the greatest impact denuvo could possibly have on a processor would be 9%. But there is no data published anywhere that supports your assumption.

Your analysis also 'assumes' a linear correlation between processor performance decrease and processor speed capacity even though that assumption is already disproved by the original data (The Intel Core I3 has 80% of the performance of the I7 even though you grossly overestimate the Core I3 capacity at 60% of the Core I7 capacity).

High end CPU FPS performance is obviously non-linearly disproportionately more costly than low end CPU FPS performance. Hence loss of high end CPU capacity should also have a non-linearly disproportionately larger impact on FPS performance than you 'assume' based on your simplistic and unrealistic analysis.

CPUs only perform optimally under optimum conditions. A small heat increase, for example, can have a devastating impact on a CPU already operating at near maximum capacity. Crippling any CPU by adding constant interference and increased CPU demands as per denuvo, will likely have a similar devastating impact on CPU performance.

Again, if denuvo is as harmless as you and other proponents claim, then denuvo only needs to release data showing that. So long as denuvo hides the actual data the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that the actual data doesn't support denuvo's claims.

__

Well, there is not much point in arguing with you. As you are already set on your views that CPU performance matters that much, when in fact it doesn't at all for most setups and most games. I've proven it to you using a worst case scenario using the data you yourself supplied and you still don't see it, in that case it is not much else I can do.

Your analysis also 'assumes' a linear correlation between processor performance decrease and processor speed capacity even though that assumption is already disproved by the original data (The Intel Core I3 has 80% of the performance of the I7 even though you grossly overestimate the Core I3 capacity at 60% of the Core I7 capacity).

I would clarify this one to you though: I am talking about the difference in power between the I3 and the I7, and I can assure you the I3 has less than 60% the power of the I7. I told you I used an extreme worst case scenario. The reason that the FPS difference is only 20% is because the CPU doesn't matter much, it is mostly the GPU that matters. If it was not in SLI and a game which is terribly CPU unoptimized compared to the other ones in the test ( probably it is not multi-threaded in a good way ), it'd look like in the other scenarios were the difference between the I3 and I7 is only 1 or 2 FPS. In a normal scenario without SLI the difference would be even less.

Also if you are worried about heat and all those stuffs, check the task manager while playing the latest AAA game, check how much your processor is used. Believe me the processor will not be the bottleneck in 99% of the cases, the only way you can believe it is if you see it for yourself.

It is possibly that Denuvo could have other unknown effects to your PC? Yes, of course it is possible. Althought we've not seen any such an obvious case yet, so none can know for sure. But we were having a side debate whatever the CPU overhead would be a problem or not here. If you have a game using Denuvo, play the game and measure your CPU load, if it is stuck at near 100% for all cores during your gaming, ok there would be a problem with CPU, but I think you'll see that unless you have a very low end CPU, it'll be somewhere around 50-60 % usage of full capacity at most. Just check it. Don't take my word for it.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Well, there is not much point in arguing with you. As you are already set on your views that CPU performance matters that much, when in fact it doesn't at all for most setups and most games. I've proven it to you using a worst case scenario using the data you yourself supplied and you still don't see it, in that case it is not much else I can do.



I would clarify this one to you though: I am talking about the difference in power between the I3 and the I7, and I can assure you the I3 has less than 60% the power of the I7. I told you I used an extreme worst case scenario. The reason that the FPS difference is only 20% is because the CPU doesn't matter much, it is mostly the GPU that matters. If it was not in SLI and a game which is terribly CPU unoptimized compared to the other ones in the test ( probably it is not multi-threaded in a good way ), it'd look like in the other scenarios were the difference between the I3 and I7 is only 1 or 2 FPS. In a normal scenario without SLI the difference would be even less.

Also if you are worried about heat and all those stuffs, check the task manager while playing the latest AAA game, check how much your processor is used. Believe me the processor will not be the bottleneck in 99% of the cases, the only way you can believe it is if you see it for yourself.

It is possibly that Denuvo could have other unknown effects to your PC? Yes, of course it is possible. Althought we've not seen any such an obvious case yet, so none can know for sure. But we were having a side debate whatever the CPU overhead would be a problem or not here. If you have a game using Denuvo, play the game and measure your CPU load, if it is stuck at near 100% for all cores during your gaming, ok there would be a problem with CPU, but I think you'll see that unless you have a very low end CPU, it'll be somewhere around 50-60 % usage of full capacity at most. Just check it. Don't take my word for it.

The industry standard for evaluating software impact on CPU performance is testing; not conjecture and speculation.

There is no data released by Denuvo that backs claims it is harmless to games and computers.

A documented single gateway DRM is one thing. But Denuvo is an undocumented and dangerous rogue software that cannot be monitored or even removed; and can potentially cause all sorts of unknown and dangerous problems on a user's system.

I do not and will not let any company install undocumented rogue software on my system.

__

Originally Posted by RPGFool
I do not and will not let any company install this type of rogue software on my system.

__

I hope you share same opinion about W10

Originally Posted by RPGFool
The industry standard for evaluating software impact on CPU performance is testing; not conjecture and speculation.

There is no data released by Denuvo that backs claims it is harmless to games and computers.

A documented single gateway DRM is one thing. But Denuvo is an undocumented and dangerous rogue software that cannot be monitored or even removed, and can potentially cause all sorts of undefined problems on a user's system.

I do not and will not let any company install this type of rogue software on my system.

__

Well, what would it matter if they released documentation you don't believe them anyway… ( Obviously they cannot release detail information on how exactly it works to help hackers, and besides no commercial or game company ever release that kind of information so it is unreasonable ) here is from their FAQ. And BTW the Denuvo developers are ex-crackers who left the scene ( which I am guessing you were supporting ? ). It can easily be removed, as it might leave one file you can manually delete, it is not a root-kit or anything like that, it is just part of the exe file, so how is this dangerous rogue software ?

"Do you have any negative impact on the game or customer experience?

No, since only performance non-critical game functions are used in the Anti-Tamper process, Anti-Tamper has no perceptible effect on game performance nor is Anti-Tamper to blame for any game crashes of genuine executables. "

"Does Denuvo Anti-Tamper affect my SSD or any other type of hard drives in any way?

No. As mentioned before, Denuvo Anti-Tamper does not constantly read or write any data to storage media. "

"Does Denuvo Anti-Tamper leave any files on my computer after I uninstall a game?

Depending on the game, one Denuvo-related file may be left on your computer after you uninstall the game. However, this file is inert and you can either manually delete it or leave it on your system without it affecting your PC in any way. "

"Does Denuvo Anti-Tamper constantly encrypt and decrypt data on storage media?

No, Denuvo Anti-Tamper does not continuously encrypt and decrypt any data on storage media. To do so would be of no benefit in terms of security or performance. "

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Well, what would it matter if they released documentation you don't believe them anyway… ( Obviously they cannot release detail information on how exactly it works to help hackers, and besides no commercial or game company ever release that kind of information so it is unreasonable ) here is from their FAQ. And BTW the Denuvo developers are ex-crackers who left the scene ( which I am guessing you were supporting ? ). It can easily be removed, as it might leave one file you can manually delete, it is not a root-kit or anything like that, it is just part of the exe file, so how is this dangerous rogue software ?

"Do you have any negative impact on the game or customer experience?

No, since only performance non-critical game functions are used in the Anti-Tamper process, Anti-Tamper has no perceptible effect on game performance nor is Anti-Tamper to blame for any game crashes of genuine executables. "

"Does Denuvo Anti-Tamper affect my SSD or any other type of hard drives in any way?

No. As mentioned before, Denuvo Anti-Tamper does not constantly read or write any data to storage media. "

"Does Denuvo Anti-Tamper leave any files on my computer after I uninstall a game?

Depending on the game, one Denuvo-related file may be left on your computer after you uninstall the game. However, this file is inert and you can either manually delete it or leave it on your system without it affecting your PC in any way. "

"Does Denuvo Anti-Tamper constantly encrypt and decrypt data on storage media?

No, Denuvo Anti-Tamper does not continuously encrypt and decrypt any data on storage media. To do so would be of no benefit in terms of security or performance. "

These are claims; not data. Straw dogs -- word games. Narrow claims of what denuvo doesn't do ("Denuvo… does not continuously encrypt and decrypt…" -- leaving open all non-continuous operations no matter how often) isn't the issue; What denuvo does and can do to a user's system is the issue.

If denuvo is harmless as claimed, this can easily be shown with data and documentation.

If denuvo can be removed from a user's system then the clause to the contrary should be removed from denuvo's EULA.

Time and time again we have seen companies like EA and Ubisoft make claims that turn out to be untrue in practice.

Denuvo is supported by no data and no documentation and cannot be evaluated or monitored by users. Denuvo should not be forced onto any user's system.

__

all the more reason to buy your games on GOG.

Well, let me just say I love GOG, what they are doing is great. As most people here know I also really really really dislike EA. But still I can see the need for something like Denuvo to prevent pirating of games, and it happens to be one of the first DRM who is reasonably friendly compared to root kits and viruses and lockers and whatever else they tried. So I don't know why people are complaining about it so much, probably it is mostly people misunderstanding what it is, or in some cases people who are angry because they can't pirate a game.