Denuvo anti-piracy 4.8 has been defeated again

[jagdtigger]

22 minutes ago, Bit_Guardian said:

More than 20 companies have failed using CDPR's model. It's the exception that proves the rule.

Never heard about those...

[Derangel]

14 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Is that your personal belief or someone actually failed while trying out their method? Because i never heard about it... And as long this is true you cannot claim its impossible since no-one even tried it. How could anyone(including you) know its impossible hm? Most of the studios are blinded by pure greed thats pretty obvious, but for some reason people still defending them and their ineffective methods.

It's simple logic. Other companies can beat the anti-DRM drum, but they're not going to follow the same steps CDP did. Not only did CDP have the money to go down the path they chose, they also had damn good timing. No one else can do what CDP did with GoG because CDP is the one that proved the market exists and was able to capitalize on it. Its the same reason no one else can be Steam. Valve almost single-handled created the PC game digital market as it stands today. One day someone might come along and get bigger than Steam, but no one will ever be able to repeat what Valve did. CDP is in the same situation. GoG is a once in an industry thing. You can come along and do better and get more popular, but you can't repeat the same success the same way. CDP also spent years building up a fanbase in Poland to support them and give them the money they needed to develop the Witcher. The path CDP took is unique to them.

 

It should also be noted that CDP started as a publisher and localizer before forming a development studio. It would be much harder for a developer to reach that level on their own without other revenue streams to support them.

[Jito463]

48 minutes ago, Bit_Guardian said:

Even if it we're as low as 10% it'd be worth it.

Perhaps, but you have no numbers to quantify that statement.

 

48 minutes ago, Bit_Guardian said:

Sorry, but the best data available suggests 40% or more would.

And that would be.....where?  I'd love to see where these magical numbers come from.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

7 hours ago, Bit_Guardian said:

Identification is easy. You can buy the data from Google.

LOL, no. This is essentially a treatment effects setup. You have a treatment (DRM), and you have games which got that treatment, in a completely non-random way (publishers self-select into using DRM). You are trying to get the causal effect of DRM on profits: it won't happen. What you are saying basically is: we don't need randomized control trials, just put a drug out there, let people choose whether to take it, and look at what happens to those who take it. Try to explain that theory to the FDA  

 

Now, you went a step forward, which is kind of good I guess: you said that we can somehow make up for the lack of an RTC using some other data, like downloads and what not. In Economics, we often face the problem of RTCs not being feasible or even ethical, so using what data we may have and a non-trivial amount of assumptions is where the bulk of methodological advances lies at. However, it is extremely difficult to get good enough data and credible enough assumptions, and to make matters worse each solution works on a case by case basis. You need to make explicit assumptions about how observable data xyz allows you to make an unbiased estimate for the unobservable (counterfactual) outcome. Doom not having DRM at release date never happened, it belongs to an alternative universe. But the object of interest is profits(DRM=1) - profits(DRM=0), and since DRM=0 didn't happen, you have to come up with a convincing strategy to approximate it using data from other games and what not, and no, defending the involved assumptions is far from trivial. Defending that doing so is easy and straightforward is nothing but brave ignorance.

 

If you are interested in learning more about it, though, I can upload an anonymized version of the slides I gave my Master students on this topic.

[vanished]

On 1/22/2018 at 7:01 AM, SC2Mitch said:

[...]

I'm happy that this has finally been done, it shows to the Triple-A publishers that Denuvo WILL get cracked and they're just wasting their money.

[...]

Not really.  I've heard that they are actually well aware it may only buy them a few days following a new launch, and even at that it's worth it for them to add it in.

[Bit_Guardian]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

LOL, no. This is essentially a treatment effects setup. You have a treatment (DRM), and you have games which got that treatment, in a completely non-random way (publishers self-select into using DRM). You are trying to get the causal effect of DRM on profits: it won't happen. What you are saying basically is: we don't need randomized control trials, just put a drug out there, let people choose whether to take it, and look at what happens to those who take it. Try to explain that theory to the FDA  

 

Now, you went a step forward, which is kind of good I guess: you said that we can somehow make up for the lack of an RTC using some other data, like downloads and what not. In Economics, we often face the problem of RTCs not being feasible or even ethical, so using what data we may have and a non-trivial amount of assumptions is where the bulk of methodological advances lies at. However, it is extremely difficult to get good enough data and credible enough assumptions, and to make matters worse each solution works on a case by case basis. You need to make explicit assumptions about how observable data xyz allows you to make an unbiased estimate for the unobservable (counterfactual) outcome. Doom not having DRM at release date never happened, it belongs to an alternative universe. But the object of interest is profits(DRM=1) - profits(DRM=0), and since DRM=0 didn't happen, you have to come up with a convincing strategy to approximate it using data from other games and what not, and no, defending the involved assumptions is far from trivial. Defending that doing so is easy and straightforward is nothing but brave ignorance.

 

If you are interested in learning more about it, though, I can upload an anonymized version of the slides I gave my Master students on this topic.

I'm the son of a top U.S. actuary working for Munich Re and am myself data scientist software engineer for a bank and insurance company spanning two countries and offering pretty much every insurance product under the sun other than reinsurance. I don't need the repeat lecture on material I've successfully applied using real, noisy, inconsistent, incomplete data from multiple sources. And I was referring to the piracy data, which you can buy from Google. We know because we bought market analysis metadata from them last year well worth what we paid for it.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 minutes ago, Bit_Guardian said:

I'm the son of a top U.S. actuary working for Munich Re and am myself data scientist software engineer for a bank and insurance company spanning two countries and offering pretty much every insurance product under the sun other than reinsurance. I don't need the repeat lecture on material I've successfully applied using real, noisy, inconsistent, incomplete data from multiple sources. And I was referring to the piracy data, which you can buy from Google. We know because we bought market analysis metadata from them last year well worth what we paid for it.

There's nothing to teach to he who doesn't want to learn.

Quit the empty talk and just post the empirical model that, according to you, identifies this causal effect so clearly and without controversy. Science or bust.

[Alemagno31]

On 23/1/2018 at 12:01 PM, SC2Mitch said:

OT: Why is he so mad

Because he suppousedly won a FREE trip, but in order to get that free trip they wanted him tu purchase a whole lot of EXTRAS and stuff