Even if it were incredibly straightforward and performant, it's still impossible to add no overhead. Is the process doing something? Ok, then something else has to not happen in that time
That's not strictly true, since your frame rate could be either CPU or GPU limited. If your process is light and running on the thing that has compute to spare, well then it's running on "free" compute time.
No I'm just saying that, as a concept, it's fair to say you can add a background process without impacting game performance. I'm not at all saying that's what is happening here, it's obviously not. Generally speaking, if your game isn't hitting the maximum refresh rate on your screen, it's probably GPU limited, but there can be games that are CPU limited, like flight simulators. It seems like this process is adding so much to the stack that it's got a huge effect.
So he lied.
Denuvo CEO: "Well, actually, it makes things faster. We streamline the process through several other processes to output the same result. We like to think of it as a fun multiplier. That's how Denuvo math works here."
This isn't news to anyone that's paid attention over the years. Nearly every game that had Denuvo and removed it sees a measurable performance bump. Way more than what general optimizations would do, despite what the developer/publisher and the online propaganda repeaters always claim.
why even bother playing aaa trash. it's garbage even without the performance of crippling junk they throw in
I mean people play what they enjoy and not everybody cares about chasing frames.
Denuvo making games run worse is fucking garbage, but two things can be true at once.
Unlikely, most gamers are kids, most kids are totally agnostic to anything beyond the consumption of games.
Which is obvious bullshit
Any additionally software and or layers will affect performance, be it by a few clock cycles to 100%, but some performance will be lost; its just a matter of how much. Its the same with a car; every piece you add to it will increase weight and decrease performance.
Saying its 0 is automatically bullshit and in this case its an outright lie
Because not having a DRM solution makes shareholders nervous. So a pointless system that actively makes the game worse, is a positive still.
Most games make the largest amount during the first week or two, so if it takes longer then that for someone to crack it, then it was probably worth it to the publishers. I don’t follow all the denovo news, so maybe with the new hypervisor stuff this is a moot point, but most games haven’t been cracked immediately.
I haven't had time to look into it so take this with a grain of salt, but I believe it was like a test version of the game that leaked? Someone please weigh in if they know better.
Yeah. Denuvo is DRM, not anti-cheat.
I don't think they mean they want to cheat, just that they would expect a single player game to be offline entirely and maybe a dose of "fuck you I bought this it's mine". Could be wrong tho
I was thinking along the lines of wondering why a single player game would need anti-cheat.
Required online check-ins and similar were a thing before Denuvo came on the scene, so I didn't even consider that aspect. Especially since the online portion of Denuvo is secondary to the encryption crap.
I've seen other comparisons that found little difference between RUNE cracked version and the official Ubisoft version with Denuvo.
This comparison is between RUNE and voices38, so the only thing you can infer from this is that voices38 crack is worse than the Ubisoft version.
Would you mind sharing those comparisons?
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Denuvo's CEO (I think it was) tried to explain that it couldn't impact performance, but that's basically impossible. They are pushing parts of the game through a VM and doing encryption/decryption on the fly. That's going to generate significant overhead. Whether it were to get pushed to GPU over CPU, blah blah, their DRM is still adding additional hoops for the machine to jump through.
save