Assassin's Creed Origins' Denuvo and VMProtect Bypassed

[Chino]

It was no coincidence that Assassin's Creed Origins was one of the most difficult Ubisoft titles to crack. The company learned from their past mistakes and was one step ahead of the pirates this time. Instead of just implementing the usual Denuvo and Uplay protections like in previous occasions, Ubisoft slapped VMProtect on top of both for good measure. The added security proved to be a great solution as the game remained intact for a little over three months which is a crucial time for sales. However, Ubisoft's triple-threat protection started to crumble when CPY discovered a way to bypass Denuvo 4.8 two weeks ago. The latest news from the Italian scene group confirmed that they've now bypassed Assassin's Creed Origins' last line of defense as well.

Assassin's Creed Origins has been widely criticized for being a CPU hog. Ubisoft claims that VMProtect has little to no perceptible effect on the game's performance. However, many still believe it to be the culprit. Now that the keys to the kingdom are out there, there's little to no point for Ubisoft to keep VMProtect in the game. This would be the perfect opportunity to prove the doubters otherwise. That is, unless they have something to hide.


View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[OSdevr]

I'm really starting to dislike TPUs tone on these articles.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

lesson today is these devs will never learn or take a grain of salt when their games sucked but still put a big gamble on sewing an anti-tamper software that no longer protect their rather appaling products. Many legit buyers are affected & yet the devs/studios who held responsible are not taking it seriously. All they do is put up a pathetic half-ass note to their PR department & call it a day. That's how u lose your customers.

 

[Upgrayedd]

lmao "Yearly parkour sessions"

 

[RejZoR]

I'm really starting to dislike TPUs tone on these articles.

What tone? Everyone is laughing at idiots like ubisoft insisting on screwing honest buyers while pirates are enjoying a care free experience. They should sell their games without these dumb DRM protections and instead use pirates as free PR. Also, being a honest company helps a lot. I'm gonna throw in CDPR again here. I'm sure their games get pirated, they all do, but even pirates often decide to buy it anyway because of convenience and a bit of regret (it's also why I've bought almost all GOG games I've played pirated decades ago). I don't even pirate games anymore because buying them is just more convenient. I do prefer GOG whenever I can because of DRM free policy. They respect me as customer and I respect them. Let me just say I don't play or buy any Ubisoft games, because they are greedy douchebags.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I'm really starting to dislike TPUs tone on these articles.

Um....because you like DRM? The more journalist that speak out against it the better.

 

[Space Lynx]

@Chino Would be interesting to see some benchmarks with it fully cracked vs not cracked on the same system, just to see if the performance hit is true. lol

 

[rtwjunkie]

@Chino Would be interesting to see some benchmarks with it fully cracked vs not cracked on the same system, just to see if the performance hit is true. lol

Great idea, but.....the closest you will get to that is when/if they remove one or both layers of protection. Then, the reputable places might actually test it, and only then.

 

[Patriot]

@Chino Would be interesting to see some benchmarks with it fully cracked vs not cracked on the same system, just to see if the performance hit is true. lol

While it would be nice... unless TPU wants a DMCA fine they probably won't ... doesn't matter if you have the license to use a copy of software using a version of software bypassing drm violates dcma... morality and legality are not connected.

 

[R-T-B]

While it would be nice... unless TPU wants a DCMA fine they probably won't ... doesn't matter if you have the license to use a copy of software using a version of software bypassing drm violates dcma... morality and legality are not connected.

DMCA, and that's only a stateside law.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm really starting to dislike TPUs tone on these articles.

Why is this?

Um....because you like DRM? The more journalist that speak out against it the better.

Exactly.

 

[Nuke Dukem]

I'm really starting to dislike TPUs tone on these articles.

This one isn't as bad as some others, but I do agree.

lmao "Yearly parkour sessions"

top shelf kek

What tone?

Well, the last three sentences of the article don't belong in a news piece. Read them separately - see how they sound like a personal opinion? They belong in somebody's post under the article, not in the article itself. Rather than stating facts, there's speculation, guilt implication and the general tone sides with those against Ubisoft. You can't join sides on news pieces. Keep that $#!7 for the editorials or something.

 

[Patriot]

Well, the last three sentences of the article don't belong in a news piece. Read them separately - see how they sound like a personal opinion? They belong in somebody's post under the article, not in the article itself. Rather than stating facts, there's speculation, guilt implication and the general tone sides with those against Ubisoft. You can't join sides on news pieces. Keep that $#!7 for the editorials or something.

States known facts, company statement, and customers opinions, and suggestion that would eliminate doubts.
Side A, its a hog, its probably drm.
Side B, It's the eye candy drm is good for you.
Journalist, only one way to find out.

Pretty balanced if you ask me.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Well, the last three sentences of the article don't belong in a news piece. Read them separately - see how they sound like a personal opinion? They belong in somebody's post under the article, not in the article itself. Rather than stating facts, there's speculation, guilt implication and the general tone sides with those against Ubisoft. You can't join sides on news pieces. Keep that $#!7 for the editorials or something.

Completely disagree. The sentences you reference are separate paragraph that are clearly an editorial perspective and are presented in that light. There is no journalistic conflict.

 

[Nuke Dukem]

States known facts, company statement, and customers opinions, and suggestion that would eliminate doubts.
Side A, its a hog, its probably drm.
Side B, It's the eye candy drm is good for you.
Journalist, only one way to find out.

Pretty balanced if you ask me.

K, lemme give it a try:

"Users on various forums speculate the removal of VMProtect from the game could prove beneficial for Ubisoft and dissipate any doubts its customers have about the DRM tool's supposed performance penalty."

Now, doesn't that sound less biased? Drier, perhaps, but you can't have it all. Why state there's "little to no point for Ubisoft to keep VMProtect in the game"? Let them decide, they are the ones that decide if they see a point to keep it in or not. "The perfect opportunity to prove the doubters otherwise" sounds like something some politician would say, and combined with the previous bias, sounds worse. And why imply they have something to hide and end the article with that, like some season finale cliffhanger?

Completely disagree. The sentences you reference are separate paragraph that are clearly an editorial perspective and are presented in that light. There is no journalistic conflict.

Completely disagree with you too. One paragraph or another, keep the editorial stuff for editorial pieces.

EDIT: Is it just me or does anyone think about the theoretical possibility that this DRM stuff was cracked earlier but Ubisoft paid the crackers to postpone the cracks?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Completely disagree with you too. One paragraph or another, keep the editorial stuff for editorial pieces.

There is more than one way to do things. If you don't like the TPU way of doing things, hard cheese old bean. It's their web site and they do things their own way.

 

[Patriot]

K, lemme give it a try:

"Users on various forums speculate the removal of VMProtect from the game could prove beneficial for Ubisoft and dissipate any doubts its customers have about the DRM tool's supposed performance penalty."

Now, doesn't that sound less biased? Drier, perhaps, but you can't have it all. Why state there's "little to no point for Ubisoft to keep VMProtect in the game"? Let them decide, they are the ones that decide if they see a point to keep it in or not. "The perfect opportunity to prove the doubters otherwise" sounds like something some politician would say, and combined with the previous bias, sounds worse. And why imply they have something to hide and end the article with that, like some season finale cliffhanger?



Completely disagree with you too. One paragraph or another, keep the editorial stuff for editorial pieces.

EDIT: Is it just me or does anyone think about the theoretical possibility that this DRM stuff was cracked earlier but Ubisoft paid the crackers to postpone the cracks?

Because the editor has used a game before...
And the facts are... DRM makes for a worse user experience, therefore if it is not doing it's job, which it isn't, why keep it?
They are only hurting consumers. Frankly to say it as you have stated is to take the side of the DRM makers and game devs as it is ignoring known facts.

Sure he could have stated it a number of other ways that perhaps distanced himself from the topic slightly but nothing he said was unfair or untrue.

 

[Nuke Dukem]

There is more than one way to do things.

E-freaking-xactly! Why they choose to do it this way is beyond me. Sadly, judging by the comments these last few months, I'm not alone.

If you don't like the TPU way of doing things, hard cheese old bean. It's their web site and they do things their own way.

Alas, I found the TPU way 'of olde' superior. Don't get me wrong, I still frequent it, but it's not the same anymore. Barney was wrong - new isn't always better.

Because the editor has used a game before...
And the facts are... DRM makes for a worse user experience, therefore if it is not doing it's job, which it isn't, why keep it?
They are only hurting consumers.

Look, I don't like DRM any more than you do, but until it's all removed, nothing is empirical, you can only guess how much of a negative impact it has. Could be 5%, could be 50%, could be ~0%. Testing tells no lies, while speculation could easily do so.

Frankly to say it as you have stated is to take the side of the DRM makers and game devs as it is ignoring known facts.

You'd better be more specific.

Sure he could have stated it a number of other ways that perhaps distanced himself from the topic slightly but nothing he said was unfair or untrue.

And distance himself is exactly what should have done before sitting down and typing away.

 

[megamanxtreme]

It's a very hard to wrap around.

These groups will crack the game regardless, but giving them a challenge that prolongs it.

So, remove the protection so it is easier to be cracked or keep it and try to prevent piracy as much as possible. Only a small percentage of the people that get the pirated games will buy the game out of remorse, or just because they liked the game.

I also agree against the personal opinions in an article, only if it sounds biased.

 

[HimymCZe]

What tone? ... I'm gonna throw in CDPR again here. ...

AGREED IN FULL. That difference when you release (and I buy) DRM-free game for $15 that require QUAD-core, or you release (and I pirate) 12 threads of DRM monter which cover 11 years old single threaded engine and you ask for $60.

 

[Claudio]

on YouTube, there are comparative videos Original VS Cracked .. the performances are similar

 

[lexluthermiester]

I also agree against the personal opinions in an article, only if it sounds biased.

But that's the point. Chino is taking a stand. If you look at what was said, you can see that it wasn't for/against the crackers or for/against Denuvo, more that the side of the honest gamers is being taken. We are are the real victims in this sad state of things.

on YouTube, there are comparative videos Original VS Cracked .. the performances are similar

If you are going to reference a video, please do provide a link to it.

 

[megamanxtreme]

on YouTube, there are comparative videos Original VS Cracked .. the performances are similar

If this is true, we need to lay off the anti-piracy stuff being the main culprit. We all know Ubisoft releases unoptimized games. I think someone in a random(to search will be weeks as I see dozens daily of random stuff) YouTube video said that Metal Gear Solid V was nicely optimized and it looked amazing, so it wasn't all heavy on the requirements.

 

[Patriot]

Look, I don't like DRM any more than you do, but until it's all removed, nothing is empirical, you can only guess how much of a negative impact it has. Could be 5%, could be 50%, could be ~0%. Testing tells no lies, while speculation could easily do so.
You'd better be more specific.

Negatives include getting knocked out of a game because their servers go offline even though you are playing single player. Likewise owning the game and not being able to play because the authentication servers aren't working correctly. There are all sorts of negatives besides potential performance impacts that drm has. These harms are well known. The point stands, it's broken, it is only hurting, why keep it?

Testing can tell plenty of lies... read an amd or nvidia review guide...

Your wording paints users in a negative light assuming they are wrong, and shows ubi as a benevolent company who could only gain more loyalty with their actions and prove those stupid users wrong.
You see how hard tone is? You tried to be neutral and dry and still had tonal shifts to one side.

From reading it many times now... I don't see how his tone could be different and not be making different assumptions. His slant seems pro user, not pro piracy or pro ubisoft... I think it is fairly clear to say that ubisoft can only win by removing the already broken protection, they either vindicate themselves from accusations or prove everyone right... and if they chose to not remove it... they are indeed casting shade on themselves justified or not.

on YouTube, there are comparative videos Original VS Cracked .. the performances are similar

There is a recent title that had its denuvo

From another titles that had denuvo that got removed silently after it was cracked... it would appear the performance hits are on loading and not during gameplay.
That said vm protect is adding an abstraction layer, that typically has at-least a disk performance impact, I wonder if they have actually removed it or just tricked it.
Link please.

If this is true, we need to lay off the anti-piracy stuff being the main culprit. We all know Ubisoft releases unoptimized games. I think someone in a random(to search will be weeks as I see dozens daily of random stuff) YouTube video said that Metal Gear Solid V was nicely optimized and it looked amazing, so it wasn't all heavy on the requirements.

Why not both? I dislike drm and poorly optimized games.
https://www.techpowerup.com/241144/ci-games-silently-removes-denuvo-4-0-from-sniper-ghost-warrior-3
Performance hit was load time not gameplay.

Alright, I think I have clearly stated everything as I see it... I don't think chino said anything in misleading or biased way. Feel free to believe otherwise... I don't see further discussion as productive, have a good day.

 

[Claudio]

Comparative Benchmark ...
LINK