Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (
More info?)
"Raymond Martineau" <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news
5ev51ln0nh7105c0v3c70j5hqc5atsg03@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:38:16 GMT, "DocScorpio"
> <DocScorpio@stupra-spammeros.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The two games are: KOW v. 1.2.3 (latest hack is only for 1.1.5) and SHIII
>>v. 1.2 (latest hack is only for v. 1.0). To be fair, the SHIII patch has
>>only been out for a week or so.
>
> The NO-CD cracks only appear for the latest versions of games that are
> mainstream and popular. In these kinds of cases, KOW and SH:III entered a
> smaller scale and as a result, the crackers have moved onto another game.
>
> Of course, the games that would keep receiving NO-CD cracks are the ones
> where the developers removed it due to popular demand.
>
>>You're probably right about legal pressure on the more well-known hack
>>sites. That was something I hadn't thought about.
>
> If the legal pressure was working, these well-known sites wouldn't be
> lasting for very long. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that their angle of
> defence claims that the copy-protection is faulty (e.g. SecuROM issues,
> where the CD doesn't get recognized in some drives), is invalid (e.g.
> program won't run if CD-burning software is detected), or relies on
> obsolete components (e.g. must be written in a certain pattern on a 5 1/4"
> floppy.) Of these three angles, only two have a real chance of surviving
> in
> court - and it really depends on who runs out of money first.
>
>>Say there were a hundred hackers able to hack most
>>games a couple of years ago, but now only 10 of those have the skills to
>>defeat the latest protection. Fewer games are going to get hacked....and
>>probably only the top A-list games with huge player bases.
>
> That's only one part of the problem. Other portions are:
> - As games become more and more complex, it takes longer to find FADE or
> other in-code style of protections. Crackers need to pour over tons of
> disassembly to find things that remotly look like copy-protection
> (especially if things aren't immediatly obvious until late-game.)
> - I haven't seen many tools that allow debugging a full-scale DirectX
> application with ease.
> - For some multiplayer games that rely only on CD-keys, it's considered a
> "don't-even-bother" as any attempt to crack the game would have a
> negligable result (as most other players don't even touch the cracks as
> they aren't necessairy.)
> - Keeping up with the patches requires full-time dedication. If crackers
> want to survive on this, they would have to ask for donations and/or money
> or throw away their personal time that they would like to spend on other
> stuff - which makes them a bigger target for companies that issue legal
> threats.
> - And finally, cracks are becoming obsolete since emulation is possible on
> a modern computer. Just intercept the API calls made to the CD-Drive and
> return "expected" values.
Hmmm, a lot more complicated than when all I had to do was search for text
passwords with my hex-editor (as in X-Wing) and zero them out.
This whole thread is based on my experience with only a couple of games, so
in reality maybe nothing is happening here. However, if something is
happening, it probably results from the combination of factors that you and
other posters mentioned: (1) Complex protection turns cracking into a
full-time job (hence, fewer updated hacks for patched games), (2)
potentially fewer hackers coming up because hardware and programs don't have
to tweaked as much as in DOS-days....so the skills/interest never develop,
(3) legal challenges to prevent the obvious, big sites from posting the
cracks.
I don't know if you can argue there are fewer pc gamers now than in the
'80's and 90's. I mean pc ownership has ballooned since the mid-90's. A
huge number of new gamers may be console gamers only, but overall there are
a lot more pc users now than then, so the number of potential pc gamers
should be higher overall than back then. OTOH, the number of new pc games
available each month doesn't seem to support this argument. There was a
time when I bought 4-6 games a month......now I'm lucky to buy that many in
6 months. Course it might be me rather than the gaming market.