This could maybe do with some work, probably from people more knowledgeable than I, but I feel it's a topic worth expanding upon. Could maybe lead on to a list of games using certain DRM software. --Deanb 02:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike unless otherwise noted.
Information on SafeDisc is incorrect, it works fine in Windows 10, it's SecuROM that doesn't work.
Actually maybe I have this ass backwards, but I just tried Prisoner of Azkaban and it worked fine.
Yeah, you had that backwards, as mentioned on the bullet below SecuROM.
Microsoft blocked the kernel driver that SafeDisc relied upon (secdrv.sys). They didn't block anything related to SecuROM (which doesn't even rely on kernel drivers to begin with, it seems).
This is not an uncommon misunderstanding either, as it all has its origin back to a Microsoft representative whom misspoke during an interview. You can see a breakdown of the whole situation here: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bt6igw/is_gog_selling_fear_with_active_securom_drm/eov1xqn/
Edit: It's possible your disc based copy of Prisoner of Azkaban does not rely on SafeDisc, or that even older versions of SafeDisc is still working and have no dependency on the secdrv.sys kernel driver that Microsoft blocked, of course.
Is that old tool A-ray scanner still around? I could try and scan the disc see if it's using SafeDisc or not, maybe EU versions used a different protection?
GOG have CD-key locked multiplayer in a large proportion of the games that support multiplayer. So contrary to their claims, GOG is not completely DRM free in reality.
I'm amazed that they've been able to get away with their false advertising for so long. Just shows how much nobody cares.
It's an area where most consumers don't show much of caring, since it's generally understandable why online-based services are tied do some form of DRM such as a CD-key that can be used to prevent or minimize abuse.
I have tried rephrasing the DRM-free section a bit to cover this as well. For applicable titles that requires some form of DRM for online-based features, a note in the availability table on the game-specific article must be made.
It might have made sense when DRMs were almost all driver based, but for denuvo and steam (prolly arxan?) there's really nothing to remove in the first place. Unless we count license files, which is like an insult to consider. Let alone "installed" with or without user consent. Which is not even the point then, nobody is asked invididually for physx, VC, flash, this or that update. It's implied. The actual felony imo, is having "random stuff going on" even when protected games aren't running.
SecuROM is pretty emblematic for this then. It hasn't any pesky ring-0 code (running on startup, yes I'm looking at you safedisc). But they still have a removal utility for supposedly "their library" (which for as much of a vague term, still is far from our whatever-it-means "software platforms")
With the assumption this is only called from games' paul.dll, I argue its "removal notice" should just be a normal
, rather than
Also, it's crazy we are totally missing what's likely the *most* common DRM these days, especially since we ourselves are hosting its most detailed documentation on the web (TODO: ask cyanic what stub/ceg version is a PITA with debuggers)
There are so much caveat though, that I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worth a separate page (something I'm asking myself for other DRMs info too)
Just "Software" or maybe "Software-based" might be better? Or maybe call it "Middleware" or "DRM Middleware" as that's what they basically are? But yeah, that whole section could use a rewrite with Steam's various types of DRM added to it, not to mention Uplay and Origin's DRMs as well.
Part of the problem is that even PCGW suffers from not having a clear view of what's DRM and what's not, and what "type of DRM" to use and when. Take Paradox's Launcher for example; this launcher can be used to download DRM-free copies of the games you own. But as usual the downloads themselves are "locked" behind an account. So is this DRM-free or is it Account-based? Tyranny's article lists is as DRM-free, while Stellaris' article lists it as Account-based.
And if it is "Account-based", why do PCGW make an exception and call GOG DRM-free when it, too, locks the downloads behind an account with the license tied to it? Is it because it is a website? Because that's a ridiculous reason as a web browser is just a client just like Paradox's Launcher is a client.
PCGW could really use a strict definition that *all* contributors and articles go by, and from what perspective to look at things. Should contributors evaluate the DRM aspect from what a player can do with the game when they have obtained the data for it, or *how* they access said data? The former would result in GOG titles, Paradox Launcher, a ton of Steam games and a lot of other stuff be labeled as "DRM-free" even if they required an account to download the data the first time. The latter would result in practically all services (including GOG) be labeled "Account-based".
The current situation is basically a mishmash of different perspectives and definitions. It isn't helping that GOG automatically results in a "DRM-free" tag in the Availability table, while Steam/Origin/Uplay results in a "DRM" tag, despite the fact that all of them are technically account-based at the platform level and can differ on the game level with some being DRM protected and other DRM-free.
This is the last thread (which at least I'm aware/participated) where AFAIK my clear-cut* position eventually won.
Nobody bothered to actually implement guidelines though, you are right. You could try to experiment yourself for an editing guide change, if you have spare time.
And from that, to getting to improve actual DRM article, the step is short.
*and not as dumb that even the "purchase paywall" could classify as DRM, yes
Well, renamed and went through the whole thing. I think I managed to solve all the main issues that section had, and added additional subsections for Steam, Origin, Uplay, and Microsoft Store's DRM wrappers.
The removal options were also removed from the bullets and worked into the "regular" text of each appropriate section. Only reason TAGES haven't had this change was because it's so barebone so it looks out of place with no bullets at all.
Holy darn moly. Hats off for you.
(though I'm still not sure on whether the "long introductions" mightn't create more confusion than they solve)
Also, I'm still thinking specific pages for almost like every technology will be needed in the future (Steam already being there ofc)
Yeah, I'm sorta of the same opinion myself. Challenge is to create enough meaningful substance to warrant a whole page, and not simply copy/paste Wikipedia's article on the subjects. I can see myself create one for Denuvo Anti-Tamper (was about to do so as well for a short while), but that one is at least well understood from how it might affect users.
None the less, perhaps it would be better of creating separate pages of a new category and then list all entries in that category on the DRM page, even if the individual pages might not include much information. Dedicated pages would also allow us to more easily collect relevant information on a single page, and not have like now when some information is in the DRM article, other in the 'The Big List of 3rd Party DRM on Steam' article, and yet even more in a dedicated page somewhere (such as 'List of Games for Windows - LIVE games'). Right now we're juggling a lack of information with too much information on this page.
Having a page for each DRM would work really well, and with a game list on the same page it wouldn't matter how short the description part is. The game list could be given as a separate link on pages like Steam that are already very long.
Ideally, all old static lists like The Big List of 3rd Party DRM on Steam and List of Games for Windows - LIVE games would be generated by the game pages themselves (this will require some template changes).
“In Rime, [Denuvo] went out of control,” Baldman wrote. “But don’t worry: millions of protections triggers calls are not enough to stop Baldman.”
not very reliable with a sample size of 1, would have to compare other games with and without Denuvo
Well, we have two good examples of games that run exactly the same with and without Denuvo. I'm talking about Doom 2016 and Homefront The Revolution.
All these "Denuvo is bad for performance" claims are myths to me.
Good point about the Doom. I forgot it was removed.
Could the "Does not degrade SSDs" keypoint be removed entirely as the SSD damage claim appears to be a myth?
I'd like it to be removed, believe me. Problem is some people still claim this is true :/
May just apply to games published by EA.