[QUOTE=laserguided;39914519]Then he doesn't get to close his game? What is your objective here?[/QUOTE]
The entire point is that the gameplay is technically capable of functioning offline because vital calculations are not offloaded to the cloud. Publisher rejected the possibility of offline mode based on their claim that it was doing just that. They evidently lied.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;39915320]The entire point is that the gameplay is technically capable of functioning offline because vital calculations are not offloaded to the cloud. Publisher rejected the possibility of offline mode based on their claim that it was doing just that. They evidently lied.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39909227]Man, I wish laserguided had taken my bet. It's not even half through the week and there's an offline mod/crack. :p[/QUOTE]
I was talking about people like this, I just forgot to quote him. He changed his words too, this is just a simple JS edit anybody can do not a crack. Tech illiteracy and RPS not knowing what a mod is.
[quote] He changed his words too, this is just a simple JS edit anybody can do not a crack.[/quote]
A crack doesn't have to be an EXE/DLL/compiled whatever mod. Who gave you that idea?
A crack is anything that breaks the security of a system. e.g. copy-protection and DRM. This breaks the DRM requiring the player to be online at all times. It's a crack; regardless of how easy it was to make it.
And who changed what words?
[quote]They're going to have a working game by the end of the week; bet on it, it's good odds.[/quote]
In what way is it 'not working'?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39916717]A crack doesn't have to be an EXE mod. Who gave you that idea?
A crack is anything that breaks the security of a system. e.g. copy-protection and DRM. This breaks the DRM requiring the player to be online at all times. It's a crack; regardless of how easy it was to make it.
And who changed what words?[/QUOTE]
Its not a crack, its a mod for a moddable game. The developers intended for this sort of thing to happen as they have said. By your logic all mods = cracks.
[quote]The developers intended for this sort of thing to happen as they have said.[/quote]
Oh,[i] come off it[/i]. Prove that with some sort of statement by one of the developers to the effect of:
"We created the always online requirement so that it'd get cracked eventually. Also we really went hard on stating that nobody could do this because computations client side are shipped to the server etc."
A mod can definitely introduce a crack; poorly designed security or no. This mod breaks the always online requirement. The always online requirement is arguably the protection scheme for the game. If the always online requirement is defeated, the thing that defeats it is a crack. Edit: I bet if the JS was compiled into the EXE and then the same line was altered, you'd be going 'oh it's a crack'.
[quote]By your logic all mods = cracks.[/quote]
Any mod that breaks a security requirement or component is a crack; regardless of how its executed or is packaged.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39916739]Its not a crack, its a mod for a moddable game. The developers intended for this sort of thing to happen as they have said. By your logic all mods = cracks.[/QUOTE]
The fuck?
They didn't add mod support with intentions that people would disable offline themselves. Making a version run bypassing the DRM is a crack.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39916763]Oh,[i] come off it[/i]. Prove that with some sort of statement by one of the developers to the effect of:
"We created the always online requirement so that it'd get cracked eventually. Also we really went hard on stating that nobody could do this because computations client side are shipped to the server etc."
A mod can definitely introduce a crack; poorly designed security or no. This mod breaks the always online requirement. The always online requirement is arguably the protection scheme for the game. If the always online requirement is defeated, the thing that defeats it is a crack. Edit: I bet if the JS was compiled into the EXE and then the same line was altered, you'd be going 'oh it's a crack'.
Any mod that breaks a security requirement or component is a crack; regardless of how its executed or is packaged.[/QUOTE]
That actually isn't what I said though, the UI is completely moddable. Obviously they don't care that much.
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=legolover122;39916830]The fuck?
They didn't add mod support with intentions that people would disable offline themselves. Making a version run bypassing the DRM is a crack.[/QUOTE]
The fuck?
Then why did they script a time limit in JS and say everybody can do whatever they want before the game even came out?
It is a crack, same way the NRASS No-CD removes the Disc Authentication for Sims 3 It's packaged as a mod and executed like a mod, but classed as a crack.
[quote]That actually isn't what I said though, the UI is completely moddable. Obviously they don't care that much.[/quote]
Security through obfuscation instead of encryption. Maybe they didn't expect that someone would be willing to parse through the thousands of lines of code in that interface.
Maybe they thought that their online component would work beautifully and therefore there wouldn't be any incentive to crack it. Et cetera.
[quote]Then why did they script a time limit in JS?[/quote]
To save time; it was too difficult to decouple it from the rest of the code; laziness; by accident.
Prove that they did it [i]on purpose[/i] (allowed players to simply disable the online component of the game) and we'll believe you.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39916843]
The fuck?
Then why did they script a time limit in JS and say everybody can do whatever they want before the game even came out?[/QUOTE]
It's still bypassing the DRM system allowing people who haven't bought it to play for free. Yes. It's a crack.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39916864]Security through obfuscation instead of encryption. Maybe they didn't expect that someone would be willing to parse through the thousands of lines of code in that interface.
Maybe they thought that their online component would work beautifully and therefore there wouldn't be any incentive to crack it. Et cetera.
To save time; it was too difficult to decouple it from the rest of the code; laziness; by accident.
Prove that they did it [i]on purpose[/i] (allowed players to simply disable the online component of the game) and we'll believe you.[/QUOTE]
But I don't care if you believe me, why should I?
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=legolover122;39916878]It's still bypassing the DRM system allowing people who haven't bought it to play for free. Yes. It's a crack.[/QUOTE]
Could you show me the definition for crack?
[quote]But I don't care if you believe me, why should I?[/quote]
Wow. So you basically have so much blind faith that you can't conceive of any of those situations being more plausible than 'yeah, we just put it in there. because reasons.'?
[quote]Could you show me the definition for crack?[/quote]
I gave you two perfectly good definitions above. You in fact provided your own before you edited your initial response to my 'it's a crack' post. So, obviously, you think you know.
Prove my definition is incompatible with the common application of the word 'crack'.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39916911]Wow. So you basically have so much blind faith that you can't conceive of any of those situations being more plausible than 'yeah, we just put it in there. because reasons.'?[/QUOTE]
I don't get it, you ask me to try and make you believe what I say then when I say you do the same for me you get mad or something?
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39916911]Wow. So you basically have so much blind faith that you can't conceive of any of those situations being more plausible than 'yeah, we just put it in there. because reasons.'?
I gave you two perfectly good definitions above.[/QUOTE]
Those definitions aren't cited good sir! I don't believe you, prove it to me otherwise I won't believe you.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39916900]But I don't care if you believe me, why should I?[/QUOTE]Did you, seriously, just ask why you would bother to get [i]evidence for your stance on something?[/i]
[QUOTE=laserguided;39916900]
Could you show me the definition for crack?[/QUOTE]
According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_cracking]wikipedia[/url]
[quote]Software cracking is the modification of software to remove or disable features which are considered undesirable by the person cracking the software, usually related to protection methods: (copy protection, protection against the manipulation of software), trial/demo version, serial number, hardware key, date checks, CD check or software annoyances like nag screens and adware.[/quote]
The "it's a feature" argument isn't valid.
[QUOTE=Pennywise;39916927]Did you, seriously, just ask why you would bother to get [i]evidence for your stance on something?[/i][/QUOTE]
Evidence for what?
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=legolover122;39916930]According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_cracking]wikipedia[/url]
The "it's a feature" argument isn't valid.[/QUOTE]
But its a feature!
[quote]I don't get it, you ask me to try and make you believe what I say then when I say you do the same for me you get mad or something?[/quote]
I'm not mad, I'm confused and a little shocked. If I'm mad about anything, it's that you've basically decided to give up the ghost and argue wholly on semantics and faith -- both things that you could basically just say "Well, I have my own personal definitions!".
And on that I'm only mad because it seemed like you might've changed your mind and I feel like I've wasted time and effort.
[quote]Those definitions aren't cited good sir![/quote]
You want me to provide [i]an official definition[/i] like, from Webster or something, for a word that's used [i]exclusively in pirate scenes and in a fashion that's not the normal application of the word?[/i]
Next you'll want an official definition for xyzzy; as pertains to computer games and not the mathematical definition.
[quote]But its a feature![/quote]
Prove it without round-abouts saying 'well you can get at it with Notepad, so it was [i]meant[/i] to be changed'
[QUOTE=laserguided;39916932]
But its a feature![/QUOTE]
Are you fucking serious? You're calling lazy coding a "feature?"
It's as much a feature as custom EXE files and DLL files. Both modifications of pre-existing files meant to bypass DRM systems.
[QUOTE=legolover122;39916954]Are you fucking serious? You're calling lazy coding a "feature?"[/QUOTE]
Ehem, scripting!
[QUOTE=legolover122;39916963]Semantics.[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely correct!
[quote]Prove it without round-abouts saying 'well you can get at it with Notepad, so it was meant to be changed'[/quote]
I'm still waiting.
Am I supposed to break games that I'm playing because I can get at variables with Cheat Engine? Was that intended?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917001]I'm still waiting.[/QUOTE]
Prove what exactly and why are you waiting?
[quote]Prove what exactly?[/quote]
That because that setting was in an unencrypted file that therefore it must be a setting that the developers put in [i]expressly[/i] to allow people to disable the always online requirement.
[quote]and why are you waiting?[/quote]
Because when you can't, maybe you'll finally concede your point and stop being inflammatory and acerbic for no decent reason. Unless you have one, that is?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917001]I'm still waiting.
[B]Am I supposed to break games that I'm playing because I can get at variables with Cheat Engine? Was that intended?[/B][/QUOTE]
That would be classified as a straw man argument as far as I know.
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917014]That because that setting was in an unencrypted file that therefore it must be a setting that the developers put in [i]expressly[/i] to allow people to disable the always online requirement.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that? You probably misunderstood what I said.
[quote]Where did I say that? You probably misunderstood what I said.[/quote]
[quote]But its a feature![/quote]
Why do you think it's a feature? Because:
[quote]Then why did they script a time limit in JS and say everybody can do whatever they want before the game even came out?[/quote]
and
[quote]Obviously they don't care that much.[/quote]
I fail to see how I could misunderstand that. But sure, tell me what you actually meant in case I'm dense.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917037]Why do you think it's a feature? Because:
and
I fail to see how I could misunderstand that. But sure, tell me what you actually meant in case I'm dense.[/QUOTE]
A. "But its a feature!" was a joke. B. They didn't care that much about it being bypassed if they wrote it in JS. Otherwise they're dumb.
I just can't wait til this out with working saves so I can finally play it :smile:
[QUOTE=massaki;39917084]I just can't wait til this out with working saves so I can finally play it :smile:[/QUOTE]
It won't unless they make a server emulator.
[quote]They didn't care that much about it being bypassed if they wrote it in JS. Otherwise they're dumb.[/quote]
At risk of being a broken record:
[quote=Other perfectly sane reasons]To save time; it was too difficult to decouple it from the rest of the code; laziness; by accident.
Prove that they did it on purpose (allowed players to simply disable the online component of the game) and we'll believe you.[/quote]
I believe in accidents more than 'btw, you can totally just turn off the online component by editing this exposed var; it's cool.'
Thus, I'd like you to back that up with more than just blind faith. A developer saying as much; turning a blind eye towards a direct confrontation with that; etc.
Prove that it's more than just a 'oh shit, did we actually leave that in there?! I thought that was going to be hardcoded!'
EDIT:
[quote]It won't unless they make a server emulator.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_state#Save_states[/url]
And other various approaches disagree. If the loading is done entirely client side and all the data they need to load a city is client-side, it's absolutely hackable without an emulator.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
