Civ7 now includes Denuvo

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is my most sincere hope that they do remove it in 6 or so months time. I WANT this game. I want to pay them for it. But I will not knowingly install a game with Denuvo.
There is very little factual reason not buy game because of denuvo if you really WANT the game.

Possible performance issues related to anything will be revealed after launch or during the following months. So if there is enough performance for you just buy.
 
There is very little factual reason not buy game because of denuvo if you really WANT the game.

Possible performance issues related to anything will be revealed after launch or during the following months. So if there is enough performance for you just buy.
Performance is one thing, but that isn't my principle concern (I have a high end enough system to likely absorb whatever impact there might be, or can wait it out for any impact to be negated with fixes). My main concern are the kernel level drivers that Denuvo uses. Kernel level access is woefully overly permissive for a tool designed to ensure you didnt steal the software or that you dont cheat (which for me doesnt matter as I play Civ single player only). MS appears to have a path forward to remove 3rd party access to the kernel, at least as much as possible after the incident on July 19th with Crowdstrike. If MS is planning or working on pushing security vendors out of the kernel, I dont see why they would allow other 3rd part software to keep their fingers in the kernel. There is no financial reason to allow one and not the other, and there is a reputational risk to keep some 3rd party software having that access while removing (or reducing) security related software from said access.

Some Links: https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/kernel-mode-under-microscope-at-windows-security-summit-a-26280
 
They could attempt to correct some of the misinformation posted in this thread and reassure us that their implementation of Denuvo doesn't hurt performance or collect any personal information. They could let us know that they hear our concerns.
That would require honesty on the matter.
Mirroring what Quintillus already said: would that help? Would people believe 2K in that hypothetical?

Engaging is a lose-lose on this kind of topic. The only announcement likely to do any good is the hypothetical removal of Denovu. Plus, the only instances of 2K posting found are close to 10 years ago (and one was a marketing survey - hardly contentious).
 
I might have asked this before, but how likely is it that Denuvo will prevent this game appearing as a torrent online less than a day after the official release?
Which would mean that those who don't pay for it are also running a better program.
Obv not condoning piracy - asking a programming question about this software's actual capabilities.
 
I might have asked this before, but how likely is it that Denuvo will prevent this game appearing as a torrent online less than a day after the official release?
Which would mean that those who don't pay for it are also running a better program.
Obv not condoning piracy - asking a programming question about this software's actual capabilities.
I could be summarising various posts in the thread incorrectly but the product in VII is "anti-tamper", and not the "anti-cheat" product with kernel access. There's also some confusion around a full Denuvo DRM system and Anti-Tamper by itself.

Regardless, it varies. Historically games have been cracked, but in recent years, a lot less so / none at all (citation needed). It seems to be effective insofar as "preventing piracy" goes. There isn't enough unbiased info to talk about affecting game performance.
 
I might have asked this before, but how likely is it that Denuvo will prevent this game appearing as a torrent online less than a day after the official release?
Which would mean that those who don't pay for it are also running a better program.
Obv not condoning piracy - asking a programming question about this software's actual capabilities.
Denuvo Anti Tamper, which does not affect performance and is not kernel level, has not been cracked in about 2 years. It’s widely bemoaned as “uncrackable” by pirates.

Denuvo Anti Tamper does its job to prevent piracy, which is why companies use it. Civ 7 isn’t going on torrents anytime soon.
 
Mirroring what Quintillus already said: would that help? Would people believe 2K in that hypothetical?

Engaging is a lose-lose on this kind of topic. The only announcement likely to do any good is the hypothetical removal of Denovu. Plus, the only instances of 2K posting found are close to 10 years ago (and one was a marketing survey - hardly contentious).
I don't see why it must be 2K posting. There are plenty of Firaxis posters here who could pass along a message to us.
 
You don't know this to be true.
There’s zero proof of it beyond unverified circular claims on forums that all cite each other. The burden of proof goes on those making the claim. At any rate, a good 95% of this thread is people confusing Denuvo Anti Tamper with Denuvo Anti Cheat.
 
There’s zero proof of it beyond unverified circular claims on forums that all cite each other. The burden of proof goes on those making the claim. At any rate, a good 95% of this thread is people confusing Denuvo Anti Tamper with Denuvo Anti Cheat.
And yet, the developers of Humankind specifically said that they removed Denuvo from the game just before release because it was negatively impacting performance and they couldn't fix it in time. That's pretty strong evidence that Denuvo anti-tamper can impact performance.
 
This does sound impressive. But is there literally any major game which doesn't go to torrent very soon after release?
I’n not sure you understood my post. The answer to your question is yes—literally every single major game with Denuvo in the last ~2 years remains uncracked on torrents. Denuvo works.
 
So you aren't aware of any?
I’m aware of plenty, many of which have been named in this very thread, but you said you were going to google anyway so I figured it’d be more meaningful for you to discover the answers yourself :)

Here’s a hint though; the latest released Firaxis game!
 
Performance is one thing, but that isn't my principle concern (I have a high end enough system to likely absorb whatever impact there might be, or can wait it out for any impact to be negated with fixes). My main concern are the kernel level drivers that Denuvo uses. Kernel level access is woefully overly permissive for a tool designed to ensure you didnt steal the software or that you dont cheat (which for me doesnt matter as I play Civ single player only). MS appears to have a path forward to remove 3rd party access to the kernel, at least as much as possible after the incident on July 19th with Crowdstrike. If MS is planning or working on pushing security vendors out of the kernel, I dont see why they would allow other 3rd part software to keep their fingers in the kernel. There is no financial reason to allow one and not the other, and there is a reputational risk to keep some 3rd party software having that access while removing (or reducing) security related software from said access.

Some Links: https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/kernel-mode-under-microscope-at-windows-security-summit-a-26280
You have gravely misunderstood things. Denuvo version meant for preventing piracy (denuvo anti-tamper) does not have drivers. Kernel or otherwise.
 
I don't see why it must be 2K posting. There are plenty of Firaxis posters here who could pass along a message to us.
It's a 2K decision, is my assumption. In this hypothetical, you're suggesting 2K tell Firaxis to communicate something on their behalf, and suffer whatever response likewise (good or bad).

Even if I thought that was a good idea (I don't), I don't really see the difference. It would be seen as 2K getting Firaxis to communicate on behalf of 2K.

Which is why I said the only good message could possibly be "we're removing it". No other message would help this or any related discussion, and not engaging is therefore not a sign of cowardice or "not listening" (at least, from Firaxis).

And I'll to be honest honest, at this point I'd assume every publisher is aware of Denuvo's reputation. The decision to go forward with it is a intentional exercise in cost-benefit analysis in a for-profit industry. I'm not defending or even criticising that (there are arguments for both), but it does make most communication about it a tad redundant.
 
Mirroring what Quintillus already said: would that help? Would people believe 2K in that hypothetical?

Engaging is a lose-lose on this kind of topic. The only announcement likely to do any good is the hypothetical removal of Denovu. Plus, the only instances of 2K posting found are close to 10 years ago (and one was a marketing survey - hardly contentious).
Indeed, You might be right.
Only valuable information would be - Denuvo was removed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom