Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

gamasutra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#31

Post by gpcz »

_nullandnull_ wrote: post #23
gpcz wrote: post #18

The biggest takeaway of this article is that effective security comes from proper threat modeling and analyzing the cost dynamics. Most media companies in that era attempted to build an "uncrackable" system which always got cracked in short order because the mechanism depended on one tactic. By acknowledging that all protection schemes eventually get figured out and acknowledging the adversary's strengths and weaknes…

> the author could then employ defense-in-depth techniques to maximize the cost of cracking the system. Can you provide more details on this statement? I understand defense-in-depth and the different methodologies for cracking software but your statement doesn't make sense when applied as a whole. Do you have any examples?

The real meat of the defense-in-depth analysis is on page three of the article. Spyro had a two-layer defense-in-depth scheme: one layer that looked like a normal PSX cracking problem, and another that would look fine for a while and then mess up the game over time, which forced the crackers to make a complete play-through (and probably multiple failed play-throughs) to verify that their cracks worked. This served to make the cracker's feedback loops as long as possible. The author also acknowledges that it was impractical to add more layers of protection due to computational/IO/space costs, but that it would have offered more security, such as having multiple copies of the game's executable code on disc that are separately encrypted and randomly used, using custom compression algorithms, etc.

At its philosophical core, defense-in-depth is the idea of delaying an attacker rather than preventing an attack. In a military or IT situation this delay usually lets the defender detect the attack and counterattack/prosecute. In the cracking world, the delay IS the counterattack, since release groups measure their performance based on release quickness and the company (theoretically) gains revenue from the game not being on Kazaa during that critical sales season.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#32

Post by sosborn »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #17
phpnode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not being logical, you're just parroting anti-anti-copying propaganda. > If the 12 yr old pirates $17,000 (retail price) of music, this does not mean the record companies are out $17,000... 12 yr olds don't have $17,000 to spend even if they are prevented from pirating. Right, but it does not mean that the record companies are out $0 either. They are probably missing out on at least several hundred dollars wor…

> Right, but it does not mean that the record companies are out $0 either. I might concede that this is the case, but only if we first agree that this doesn't mean you get to choose some arbitrary number in the middle and pretend that this is the "average loss". I know of no economic science that can provide a reasonable number, either. You'd be lying if you claimed you knew of one. > They are probably missing out on…

"They're probably missing out on several tens of dollars." * "The large number of people pirating songs"

Yes, they went too far, but for fucks sake, it is really hard to imagine that these acts hurt a company?

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#33

Post by joosters »

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #28
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10

I've often heard people say that piracy isn't harmful, but looking at what it does to video game developers, I'm not sure it always isn't. Day 1 cracks are obviously a serious concern if developers like this one would go to so much effort to prevent them. And I remember Nintendo saying piracy had hurt DS software sales in Europe (understandably: instead of buying several full titles, people would buy a cheap "R4" or…

It's a bit puzzling to hear this coming from Nintendo since it's pretty clear that piracy hurts the Windows platform infinitely more than the console industry. Very, very few console owners run unlocked consoles, so they don't even have the option of running cracked games. On the other hand, every PC owner can run cracked copies, and it only takes a few minutes of reading for even the most non tech savvy Windows user…

Very, very few console owners run unlocked consoles

If that were true, these console developers wouldn't need to worry about their games being cracked. And yet, as the article discusses, there really is a piracy problem.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#35

Post by gambiting »

sosborn wrote: post #30
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit puzzling to hear this coming from Nintendo since it's pretty clear that piracy hurts the Windows platform infinitely more than the console industry. Very, very few console owners run unlocked consoles, so they don't even have the option of running cracked games. On the other hand, every PC owner can run cracked copies, and it only takes a few minutes of reading for even the most non tech savvy Windows user…

> It's a bit puzzling to hear this coming from Nintendo Those R4 carts were all over the place. I was living in Japan at the time and everyone and their mother had one. There is no doubt it cost them a lot of money.

Every single person I knew who had a PSP ran only pirated games. My cousin had a single legit copy and even then he would run a downloadad ISO because it was faster to load than the UMD. Apparently PSP sold really really well, but no games matched those sales, which suggests that PSP piracy was fairly widespread too.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#36

Post by _nullandnull_ »

gpcz wrote: post #31
_nullandnull_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the author could then employ defense-in-depth techniques to maximize the cost of cracking the system. Can you provide more details on this statement? I understand defense-in-depth and the different methodologies for cracking software but your statement doesn't make sense when applied as a whole. Do you have any examples?

The real meat of the defense-in-depth analysis is on page three of the article. Spyro had a two-layer defense-in-depth scheme: one layer that looked like a normal PSX cracking problem, and another that would look fine for a while and then mess up the game over time, which forced the crackers to make a complete play-through (and probably multiple failed play-throughs) to verify that their cracks worked. This served to…

Thank you for the response. I never really thought about defense-in-depth from the angle of slowing an attacker down. I have always thought about it from a detection standpoint. You make a good point. Cheers.

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#37

Post by squeaky-clean »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10

I've often heard people say that piracy isn't harmful, but looking at what it does to video game developers, I'm not sure it always isn't. Day 1 cracks are obviously a serious concern if developers like this one would go to so much effort to prevent them. And I remember Nintendo saying piracy had hurt DS software sales in Europe (understandably: instead of buying several full titles, people would buy a cheap "R4" or…

I'm not going to argue that piracy isn't harmful, but does fighting it really help? People claim that just preventing cracks for a few weeks is enough to make a difference. Sure, the majority of sales happen in this timespan, but that doesn't mean someone intent on pirating the game will give up and pay just because it isn't available now. That's why I don't like statements like these, from the article

>those two to three months when pirated versions were unavailable must have reduced the overall level and impact of piracy.

Sure, it probably reduced the amount of piracy, but does it reduce the impact? Is there any proof that the pirates bought the game instead of waiting a few months for a crack, or that they didn't ignore it altogether? "Less people pirated the game" doesn't necessarily cause "More people bought the game". And "More people bought the game" is caused by a lot more than just piracy, so you can never be sure.

For comparison, look at The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, a game that launched with practically no copy protection at all (just an offline CD key check), which was a huge commercial success. And Spore, a game released about a year later, was a flop and actually one of the most pirated games ever, partly out of pure spite against the extremely restrictive SecuRom DRM included with the game.

To me, fighting piracy seems like wasted effort. You can usually only delay it, there's no proof that those efforts will actually earn you sales, and you risk damaging your relationship with legitimate, paying customers in the process. That time and work can be spent making the game better. You hear about games reaching record sales because of good gameplay, good graphics, intense multiplayer, good marketing, whatever. You don't read "GTA V becomes fastest-selling entertainment product in history because of anti-piracy measures."

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#38

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

CJefferson wrote: post #25
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, but it does not mean that the record companies are out $0 either. I might concede that this is the case, but only if we first agree that this doesn't mean you get to choose some arbitrary number in the middle and pretend that this is the "average loss". I know of no economic science that can provide a reasonable number, either. You'd be lying if you claimed you knew of one. > They are probably missing out on…

As you say, it's very hard to know how much companies are out. I would guess it was at least $40, else why pay $40 for a flashcart? A new gateway (the only 3DS card I'm aware of) costs $80. People who buy 3DS flash carts never buy a game again (in my experience), mainly because new non-pirated games require upgrading the firmware, which they can't do if they want their flash carts to keep working (this may have been…

> I would guess it was at least $40, else why pay $40 for a flashcart?

I will concede that this is reasonable for a lower boundary.

However, it's not that simple. Human psychology being what it is, if he couldn't buy the $40 flashcart it's not certain that he would buy say, two $20 games that he ended up putting on that flash cart. Maybe instead he orders pizza. Being blocked from the flashcart alters decision paths that don't always lead back to video games or even entertainment in general. But with that said, again, I'll accept $40 as a rough lower boundary.

> People who buy 3DS flash carts never buy a game again (in my experience),

Anecdotal, of course, but this seems reasonable. I don't dispute it.

In my own personal experience, people who start downloading movies never buy DVDs again. So not only do I agree, I think we can generalize it either to most entertainment, or all entertainment.

> Also because they 'paid for piracy' (unlike on PC), they (I believe) feel happier not paying for games in future.

Morally, they bought physical goods that employed other people and let those people earn a living. Additionally, those claiming to have been wronged here still earned millions and billions in profit.

Who can fault them for feeling as if no bad outcomes occurred?

Re: Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001)

#39

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

sosborn wrote: post #32
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, but it does not mean that the record companies are out $0 either. I might concede that this is the case, but only if we first agree that this doesn't mean you get to choose some arbitrary number in the middle and pretend that this is the "average loss". I know of no economic science that can provide a reasonable number, either. You'd be lying if you claimed you knew of one. > They are probably missing out on…

"They're probably missing out on several tens of dollars." * "The large number of people pirating songs" Yes, they went too far, but for fucks sake, it is really hard to imagine that these acts hurt a company?

I sell doodads.

You've never bought one from me.

Can I claim that you've hurt me? After all, you've never bought any. (I can show you my bank account balance, I really am hurting).

The sticking point, the part that will make it feel to you as if my statement above is non-sensical, is somehow you've managed to attach the idea that they're selling something to the idea that other people have a (very) similar something but haven't paid. So to you that feels like "theft". But it wasn't always this way.

The way you feel has been cultivated, just in the last few decades. And though they've cultivated it for music and movies and video games, I haven't (bothered, been able to, had enough influence) to cultivate the idea that if you haven't bought doodads from me that you've stolen from me.

Post reply on HN