'Resident Evil 8: Village' Broken Due To DRM, Cracked Version Fixes It

from the your-game-on-crack dept

Any review of the stories we've done on DRM in video games will reveal two main categories as far as themes for those posts. The first is that DRM is laughably ineffective. DRM is an arms race that only ever has one winner: those who seek to circumvent it. Even the once-vaunted Denuvo DRM, thought, for some time, to be undefeatable, has now been reduced to being an industry joke. The other theme is how DRM has awful effects on paying customers and absolutely zero negative effects on those who commit copyright infringement. So, what is DRM? A useless platform used by video games with only one real impact: annoying paying customers.

But one point that often gets lost is that cracked versions of games that include annoying DRM aren't just functioning as copyright infringement (though they certainly are primarily that), but also that these cracked versions can also be legitimately seen as fixing these broken games. For an example of this, one need only look at the PC gaming experience surrounding Resident Evil 8: Village, which is fundamentally broken on the PC for paying customers.

The background here is that Capcom actually layers two different DRM systems on the game, apparently as a method for making the game much harder to crack. Instead of being cracked at the time of release, in May, the game was only cracked here in July. The problem is that this 2 months worth of protection appears to have come at the cost of the game being able to keep up when players do very necessary things in a Resident Evil game like, oh say, shooting zombies.

The retail version includes easily reproducible scenarios where attacking an advancing zombie with a gun—something you do quite often in Resident Evil games—can trigger a visible on-screen stutter. In other words, the image freezes for a noticeable moment before the game catches up, and this can be seen in RTSS's real-time graph as a spike.

Whatever Capcom and Denuvo worked up this time around seems to have evaded crackers' efforts for much longer. That may have come at the price of guaranteed smooth performance—with gaming analysts like Digital Foundry's Alex Battaglia maligning the game's PC version. "This stuttering honestly leaves a very bad first impression for this game, as the pivotal moment of a first-person game with guns is shooting those guns," Battaglia said shortly after RE8:V's May 2021 launch. "If that is unsatisfying very often when you do it, then the game is doing something wrong."

Notably, the cracked version has none of these stuttering issues. In other words, the crack, or more specifically the routing around of the DRM, simply fixes the game. Yes, it's also a method for playing the game for free and thereby committing copyright infringement, but think about what this means in summary. Capcom released a game where the core gameplay element -- shooting bad guys -- doesn't work right. The cracked version makes that core gameplay element works correctly. If you're a paying customer of Capcom's, where does this leave you?

Well, it leaves you in a place where the company you bought the game from has sold you an inferior product compared with the one the pirates are offering you for free. Does that make copyright infringement morally right? Absolutely not. But it is also not solid moral footing for the company to punish its paying customers for the crime of paying for the game as opposed to pirating it. Selling an inferior product is not a business strategy.

For what it's worth, the guilty party in this equation looks more to be the Capcom side of the equation rather than Denuvo, but that doesn't change the fact that something like 2 months worth of protection came at the cost of the paying customer. In what world does that make any sense at all?

Filed Under: drm, piracy, resident evil 8, video games
Companies: capcom

Capcom Manually DMCAs English Translation Of Ace Attorney Game Not Available In English

from the language-as-drm dept

In gaming circles, Capcom is often seen as the company that brought you the Street Fighter and Resident Evil series of games. More recently, Capcom has become notable for its Ace Attorney series of games as well. But in intellectual property circles, Capcom will always be the game studio that pimped SOPA to the public, foisted broken DRM on its customers, and treated Resident Evil customers both to a secondary-market killing DRM that allowed only one play-through of the game and the removal of promised features and only alerted customers to it after sales had begun rolling in. I think it's fair to say, in other words, that Capcom has been known to be almost cartoonishly pernicious.

Speaking of which, Capcom also recently shut down a fan-translated play-through of an Ace Attorney game only available in Japan. Consistency!

Dai Gyakuten Saiban is an Ace Attorney spin-off starring an ancestor of Phoenix Wright in feudal Japan that has not been released in English. For O and Garbage, who run a Dai Gyakuten Saiban YouTube channel, it’s their favorite Ace Attorney game.

“Since I have an import 3DS, I bought the game just to try it out,” she said over reddit private messages. “Dai Gyakuten Saiban drew me in with it’s aesthetics, and then caught me in a death grip with Asougi [the main character’s rival].” Their shared passion for the game lead them to translate it over a period of about 8 months. Their videos consisted of footage of the game as they played it without commentary, with subtitles added using YouTube’s subtitling options. They finished just in time for the announcement of Dai Gyakuten Saiban 2. “We both loved the game a lot,” O said, “and it was a shame that not everyone would be able to experience it because it lacked a localization.”

Ok, so a couple of things to note here. First, the videos in question are quite old. It seems they began the series in 2015, so we're talking a couple of years here. Second, O and Garbage say they purposefully made sure there were no ads or monetization on the videos. They were trying to share the game with others that didn't have access to it, not make coin. Third, I've found nothing to suggest that any English version of the game is even planned, nevermind set for release. Most references for the game suggest there is no planned release for the game anywhere outside of Japan. Given that it's already a few years old, the likelihood of translated versions is beginning to drop. So, we have a fan translation of a game play-through in a language for which there is no planned release, with an audience in a market for which there is no planned release. And Capcom took it down. Why?

I already know what you're thinking: "Probably a ContentID or bot-driven DMCA notice is to blame." Nooooooope.

Sunday, June 25th, O discovered that the entirety of their translated Dai Gyakuten Saiban videos had been taken down by Capcom. The copy of the takedown notice they showed me indicated that they were manually detected, and not a victim of the automated “Content ID” system that is sometimes overzealous in how it flags gameplay videos. I reached out to Capcom about this and they declined to comment.

So Capcom manually took down this fan translation, apparently believing that language is a form of DRM and gamers ought to have to learn Japanese and buy the only version of the game that exists in order to get any sort of peek at a play-through. Keep in mind we're talking about a play-through without ads or monetization on it. I'm struggling to come up with an explanation for why Capcom would do this other than...they're just mean, I guess? Mean to very real fans of its games that just wanted to show off how cool the game was to those that had no shot of getting it for themselves because Capcom didn't make it available to them.

While she’s not as frustrated as she was when she first found out, O and Garbage are both “bummed,” as Garbage puts it. But neither of them have very many regrets about starting the project in the first place.

“There wasn’t an earth shattering revelation or pull to me doing this,” Garbage said. “I just wanted to share a game that was inaccessible.”

8 months of work down the drain. And for what?

Filed Under: ace attorney, censorship, dmca, fans, translation
Companies: capcom

Capcom Removes Advertised Offline Co-Op From Resident Evil Reboot, Updates Steam Page After Sales Begin

from the promises-promises dept

Capcom's never really had much of a consumer-friendly reputation. Between being all about SOPA and utilizing innovative DRM measures such as "You only get one save file per game cartridge ever at all," it would be tough for the company to claim some kind of goodwill dividend should it screw up and find the need for one. And, boy, could Capcom ever use such a dividend amongst PC gamers right now.

The screw up was advertising on Steam that the RE-reboot, Resident Evil Revelations 2, would include a local, split-screen co-operative mode, selling the game under the umbrella of that promise, and then revealing only after sales had begun that local co-op had never been planned for the PC version of the game.

Owners of the PC version of Capcom's action horror game Resident Evil Revelations 2 have discovered that, unlike the console versions, it does not include local co-op - despite advertisements claiming it would.

The game's Steam page had promised offline co-op as part of a bullet point list of features. However, the Steam page was recently amended to state the PC version does not support offline co-op play in the Campaign or Raid mode. (Raid mode, it should be noted, will support online co-op shortly after launch via a patch.) Confusingly, the "assistive co-op play" bullet point that mentions offline co-op remains on the Steam page.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that advertising a game to a passionate fan-base as having a much-wanted feature and then yanking the rug out from under those fans only after sales had begun is not only a PR nightmare, it's a legal no-no as well. And, of all people to pull this on, passionate PC gamers may be the worst targets. This is a group that expects to be treated as much like desired customers as console-owners and, because the PC gaming landscape is littered with differences between its games and those that appear on consoles, it's a group that tends to pay very close attention to the specifics about the features of the games they buy. Not the kind of group, in other words, that you could pull this kind of false advertisement on and actually get away with it.

Perhaps worse, the tone-deaf defiant and non-apologetic nature of Capcom's response isn't going to help matters.

Here's Capcom's statement in full:

"The PC version of Resident Evil Revelations 2 supports a variety of customisable visual settings and resolutions. The decision to prioritise a single local screen was made to ensure a stable user experience across a variety of different PC settings and devices. Raid mode will support online co-op shortly after launch when a free patch is available for players to download which adds this feature, but the main campaign on PC will only be available to play in single local screen."

Great, except none of that was the point or cause of the outrage. You told consumers there was a feature in the game at the time of purchase, then revealed that feature was not now or ever planned to be included post-purchase. That's shitty. Come out with refunds and an actual apology next time.

Filed Under: false advertising, offline play, promises, resident evil, resident evil revelations 2, video games
Companies: capcom

Capcom Tries To Tapdance Out Of Its SOPA Support, Blames 'Bad Journalism' For Its Own Statements

from the not-going-to-cut-it dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. Yesterday, we noted that Capcom was one gaming company that was willing to say that it was in agreement with the ESA on SOPA... and since the ESA has made it clear that it supports SOPA, that's pretty clearly a statement that Capcom supports SOPA. I don't see how else you can interpret a claim that "the ESA represents us on these matters." When you say that someone is acting as your representative, then that means they speak for you. So we reported that accurately.

However, Capcom appears to be trying to backtrack its way out of this, by insisting that it's "bad journalism" to point out exactly what the company said:

We've only ever stated that the ESA represents us in legislative matters (again, like every other publisher). We have not stated any stance on our support (or not) for SOPA. Inferring more than that is bad journalism (which seems to be rampant based upon the rereporting of a six word response to inquiry).

As I noted in the original post, this is why it's dangerous (and not particularly smart) to outsource who represents you entirely. It's great to be a member of an organization that can work with you on what's happening legislatively, but you should never, as a company, completely outsource your own opinion on such things. But that's clearly what Capcom said in their original statement. That's not bad journalism, it's a bad decision by Capcom.

And, of course, Capcom doesn't go so far as to make an actual statement on SOPA. Instead, it claims, "We do not have an internal stance on this particular issue and are not planning to." Then perhaps that's what they should have said originally, rather than pointing journalists to the ESA...

Filed Under: pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: capcom, esa

Capcom Confirms: If ESA Is For SOPA, Then So Is Capcom

from the well,-at-least-it's-honest dept

While EA refuses to take an official position on SOPA, pro or con, it appears that some others in the industry are willing to put their name out there as a supporter. We've discussed how the ESA -- the trade group for the industry -- is a supporter, but most individual companies have been hesitant to stake out an official position. However, Digital Trends has the story that Capcom has officially signed on as a supporter of SOPA, by deferring any thinking on the matter to the ESA:

In an email with Digital Trends, a spokeswoman for Capcom said only that "The ESA represents us on these matters."

This seems... dangerous. While it's good to have a trade group who can support you and help educate both you and politicians to issues related to regulation and policy, it's pretty dangerous to completely outsource your views on controversial political issues to third parties, and let them "represent you" on matters that can drive how consumers view your entire company.

Filed Under: copyright, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: capcom, esa

Capcom's Resident Evil DRM Is Evil: You Get To Play The Game Once And That's It

from the so,-it's-a-railshooter? dept

DRM use by game manufacturers is old news. Every so often, a software company thinks it's got something "nigh invulnerable" (+30 Geek points to whoever recognizes that reference), only to find its latest piece of copy protection hacked and discarded along the virtual superhighway faster than you can say "stoptreatingyourcustomerslikethieves." Lately though, the game companies seem nearly as distraught by used game sales, which bypass their pocketbooks completely. Consequently, they've shifted their efforts towards making second-hand users feel like the last kid in line for family hand-me-downs by giving them the tattered remnants of the latest game in exchange for their second-hand money.

Capcom, however, has trumped everyone with its latest DRM, scheduled to debut on the Nintendo's 3DS. "Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D," along with being a mouthful-and-a-half to say, will feature this crippling new "feature":

You only get one save file.

And...

It can never be overwritten.

In other words, if you decide you'd like to start your game over and replay the whole zombie shooting match from the get-go, too bad. You only get one shot. How's that for sticking it to the second-hand market? If you, being the good non-pirating customer that you are, go and plunk down your $40 for this game, you would kind of expect to do things that you could do with all the other games you've spent money on. Like have multiple save files. Or a chance to start over.

Instead, Capcom is going to give you a piece of software with all the save features of the original Nintendo and possibly even less. Let's say you happen to have friends/family members who'd like to play the game. (I know: gamersz. But some of them still socialize/co-habitate.) Too bad. Those free-loading bastards you used to call friends and family will just have to open up their wallets and buy their own damn copy if they want to experience the game for themselves, rather than "enjoy" it vicariously through your save file. 

You're twice as screwed if you decide to save a few bucks and pick this up at Upsell Boutique or GameReserveYourCopy or wherever. You're starting wherever the previously unimpressed gamer left off. And if they finished the game, well... then I guess you get to watch the end credits and try to determine which of the scrolling names deserves the full blast of your rage.

And Capcom's already has its "out" for when the angry gamers come calling. "Why, we printed it right there in the manual! That's hardly hidden and/or underhanded!" The manual? You mean that worthless little booklet that had no importance until I tried to resell RE:TM3D down at the local GameUpsellBoutique? That thing? Who even reads those? More importantly, why is the clerk at the trade-in counter giving me a pro-rated payout based on completion percentage? What the hell?

Oh, Capcom. You've built yourself a very slippery slope with this move. You care so much about the potential loss of income from secondhand sales that you've completely removed yourselves from reality. I have a feeling there's some nasty backlash in your future, and I fully expect to enjoy every second of it.

Filed Under: drm, play once, resident evil, video games
Companies: capcom

When A Company Choosing Not To Sue A Copycat Is News...

from the society-today... dept

azuravian points us to the story of how indie developer Twisted Pixel has announced that it has no intention of suing gaming giant Capcom for making what looks pretty clearly to be a blatant copy of its Xbox Live Arcade game 'Splosion Man with the iPhone game MaXplosion. Twisted Pixel's CEO notes that he'd rather just compete in the marketplace:

"We're definitely not going to pursue legal action. While I think the similarities are pretty nauseating, we're too small to take on a company like Capcom. That, and we owe them one for inventing Mega Man, so we'll let them slide. I just hope they're not counting on the fact that indies can't fight back.

"In general, anything that would take our focus off of making games would be a bad decision, I think. We just need to keep our heads down making the next thing so that Capcom has something to steal next year. But I have to say, the amount of support we've seen in the last 12 hours on Twitter and over email has been awesome, and I think that's better than wining [sic] a stupid lawsuit or anything like that.

What's also interesting is that Capcom seems to recognize that it's own reputation was seriously harmed by this copying, and has put out a statement saying that it hoped to "rebuild the trust of our fans and friends in the gaming community."

Once again it looks like social mores and social pressure can be a hell of a lot more effective (not to mention cheaper) than any lawsuit.

Filed Under: competition, games, suing
Companies: capcom, twisted pixel