resident evil village hackinformer [YHX]

( Updated : October 23, 2021 )

🔥 DOWNLOAD LINK Links to an external site.






Resident Evil Village Hack Reveals The Terrifying Truth About Ethan Winters Resident Evil Village PC crack fixes shuttering issue, claims hacker | VG Video game hackers claim Denuvo and DRM to blame for 'Resident Evil Village' PC stutters Resident Evil Village crack completely fixes its stuttering issues | Hacker News
Resident Evil Village Hack Reveals The Terrifying Truth About Ethan Winters Resident Evil Village PC crack fixes shuttering issue, claims hacker Video game hackers claim Denuvo and DRM to blame for �Resident Evil Village’ PC stutters
Many gamers have reported that "Resident Evil Village" is unplayable with frequent stuttering on the PC version. Hackers Discovered the. A hacker built a pirated copy of Resident Evil Village that removed the DRM anti-piracy protection software and — as this in-depth report from Digital. All the fans of horror games finally got a worthy game to play. Resident Evil Village took a loot of time to make, but it's finally out and. According to the site, a hacker going by the name of Empress has managed to crack Village, removing built-in DRM (digital rights management). It turns out that Resident Evil Village's DRM may be causing its stuttering issues on PC, and a hacker believes cracking the software. Publisher says a patch is coming after fan hack highlighted performance issues…. Ethan Winters, the protagonist of "Resident Evil Village," sure has some pretty bad luck when it comes to keeping his family together. Another limitation is that this sharing isn't enabled for all games especially competitive online games (the system was widely abused by hackers.

I know I might be in the minority, but I just wish we could stop at semi-difficult license keys. When I was poor in college, either I would pirate a game or just not play it because there was just no way I could ever afford it. Now as a grown up I'd much rather pay for the game both to support the creator as well as not roll the dice on a backdoored keygen. I HAVE to believe that the number of folks that can both afford to buy the game and would buy the game, but would try to pirate first, is a fraction of a percent of the market. Used to pirate a lot as a poor kid in eastern europe, as there was no way I could either afford it, find a legal copy or both. They might own multiple cars and expensive real estate, but still pirate their windows as a matter of principle. I have a feeling a lot of kids brought up in eastern europe have similar sensibilities. In Finland and probably elsewhere as well , people have the right to make physical copies of copyrighted works, for private use, and private use extends as far as giving copies to family and close friends. That mentality simply carried over when the IT boom hit and back then it didn't occur to anyone that copying was a bad thing. My ex-girlfriend Estonian will not buy software because to her it's not "worth money". So, similar mentality. I ended up buying all her software Office, photoshop etc; but she said it was a waste of money. My ex is Bulgarian. Tenoke 3 months ago [—]. Other kids in Bulgaria literally made fun of me for buying WoW with summer job money, even though it was the one popular game that was complete crap pirated. Even every single office I've seen there before had pirated Windows and everything else. If I may be so bold to ask, what kind of job pays that amount? La1n 3 months ago [—]. Something like Office or Photoshop is also quite different than a videogame imho, those are skills that are valuable or often expected on the labour market. Libreoffice, Gimp and Inkscape are perfectly viable alternatives to MS and Adobe products if you are a casual user. I think those are good arguments for allowing teenagers to pirate software. And companies are less likely to pirate software. Though I have heard of some small ones that do. We currently see something related to this in the Pharmaceutical industry. Doesn't that approve of the thesis of OP. People who are not going to pay for a license, are not going to pay for it. No matter what. It makes more sense to have light license keys. They are in agreement about the fact poor people will never pay no matter what. I think it's unfair to lump windows into the mix, because the monopoly still is very real and for certain circumstances like, wanting to play certain games there's no way around it. This is not a pro or contra buying or pirating argument, and I actually know lots of people who will happily pay for software that is not windows. I don't think Windows changes anything. Wanting to play games it not a moral imperative. I see this same issue with books Particularly with international students who are ironically paying the most in tuition and housing oftentimes. Though I go out of my way to find cheaper textbooks sometimes, or accommodate older editions that can be bought dirt-cheap used, students will still just find a scanned version somewhere and share them with each other. There's online networks where they do this apparently. Well, to be honest, university textbooks at least in US is in general a predatory market. They have no choice other than not attending the university of course. If there is a loophole that lets students not pay the tuition fee without any punishment, a good amount of students would not pay. Diamonds are sometimes absurdly expensive with no valid reason. Do you believe this justifies robbing diamond stores? TeMPOraL 3 months ago [—]. What others said plus diamonds are only valuable because they're absurdly expensive. The scam works like this: - What is valuable as a symbol of love is something completely useless, but which requires you to burn excessive amounts of resources money. This is because the act of figuratively setting your money on fire clearly signals that you're making a sacrifice and the amount of money you thus burn also doubles as a proxy for your wealth. For instance, lab-made diamonds are very cheap and made to much higher quality than naturally-found ones, but "naturally found" is a perfect discriminator to force scarcity around. Hence it's the mined ones that are used for jewelry. Textbooks, or videogames, are products of utility, and don't have the aforementioned dynamics. The only thing that's happening is point 3: publishers trying to find a way to make artificial scarcity work, without a benefit of having a good discriminator all bits are created equal - hence DRM. Of course none of that justifies robbery, but in all cases it does justify every effort to prevent artificial scarcity from being established and maintained. But why is it your problem? Suppose I just wrote a sonnet sitting here in my spare time. I don't want others to know it though so I'll only share it under extremely-controlled circumstances for a lot of money to maintain this artificial scarcity. Why is it your moral imperative for you to crush my carefully-maintained monopoly on my stupid little sonnet? You ask a good question, and to be honest: I don't have a good answer to it yet. I'm still trying to work out a consistent position on the whole topic. Therefore I'm going to give you a rather tentative view. I currently feel there's a spectrum of cultural importance on media. On the one end, you have your sonnet, that few people even know exists. On the other end, you have Game of Thrones. At some point a piece of media becomes so widespread that it becomes a part of shared culture. It could meaningfully affect everyone[0], like Harry Potter or even Game of Thrones I'd expect everyone to be at least aware of its existence. These works weave themselves into the fabric of society - people lift phrases from them, make metaphors referencing them. Hogwarts is the modern Troy. Being unable to access these works - especially at the same time everyone else around you is perusing them and talking about them - becomes cultural isolation. With books, we have it solved, thanks to libraries. Almost anyone can get legal access to almost any written work - where they don't have the money, they can substitute it with effort, to get to a library and possibly convince the library to buy the work, or fetch it through inter-library loan, etc. With music and movies, we had it solved in the past too. You could be exposed to popular works through radio and TV, both private and public. This worked better pre-Internet, because while media distribution was regional, the culture was also regional. Not so today - with the spread of the Internet, the culture became international almost overnight. With Internet, enough of us in Poland can enjoy Game of Thrones simultaneously with the rest of the world that it becomes expected of everyone to enjoy it in lockstep with the whole planet. Videogames gained mainstream popularity around the same time Internet did, so there was never an equivalent of a library, or public broadcasting, for games. You either buy one or pirate it. If a game suddenly gains worldwide popularity[1] and every one of your friends is playing it, you'll either buy it or pirate it, just so you can feel included in their conversation. And that's ultimately the main justifying factor I'm currently exploring: entertainment media are social objects. One of their most important roles is to glue communities together, by giving people shared experiences to talk about. Once a work becomes popular enough, I can't really blame people who pirate it because they too want to be a part of the conversation. The sonnet from your example? It isn't popular at all, it isn't part of culture, so I'd consider pirating it as an act of malice. My view would change if I suddenly started seeing it mentioned on the news. And piracy was historically a part of it, too: few people actually bought originals of Diablo or StarCraft or Red Alert in Central and Eastern Europe, and yet they were hugely influential there, all thanks to folks with CD burners in their trucks. AmericanChopper 3 months ago [—]. Diamonds are essentially useless, but so is a painting. Your argument about their scarcity being artificial also seems pretty flawed to me. Naturally occurring diamonds are genuinely scarce, and most people value them differently from lab created ones as they are free to do. I consider natural diamonds specifically to be a scam, where paintings aren't, because both the symbolism and the scarcity of them were created by a single company, through a very long and thorough marketing effort. AmericanChopper 89 days ago [—]. So their scarcity is most certainly not artificially maintained by De Beers, as people so often like to claim. TeMPOraL 89 days ago [—]. DeBeers may not have the major market share now , but I'm talking about how they, in a process that started over a hundred years ago, single-handedly turned diamonds into symbol of love, and held a monopoly position on them until recent times. See e. The artificial scarcity argument simply defies logic. The entire worlds supply of natural diamonds was created hundreds of millions of years ago, and the earth is done making them. No, but it justifies artificially creating perfect copies of diamonds. Of course I chose an analogy which sidestepped IP questions to focus on the moral issue of defending piracy based on the price. If your argument is against IP though, why is the price relevant? You support IP laws as long as the price is one you personally find reasonable, so it's basically a system of voluntary donations then? I haven't personally drawn a hard line in the question of whether or not IP law as a whole is good or bad. I hate to use this cop-out answer, but it depends. I'm sorry for jacking your analogy, but I think it holds water. Diamonds are not inherently valuable to the degree they are priced at retail. They are valuable because of an exploitative supply chain and social manipulation efforts spanning decades. Which does not justify robbing stores and potentially causing physical or mental harm to innocent shopkeepers. But very much justifies replicating the product to render those practices worthless and hopefully deter them from happening more. The same goes for educational textbooks in many but far from all cases. Personally I've had professors who assigned their own books at very reasonable prices and apologize profusely for them costing money to begin with. I've had others who peddled their own expensive books while themselves handing out copies! I wouldn't dream of pirating the former, but I'm pirating the shit out of the latter if I can. The reason I sidestep the IP issue is I am personally much more favorable to that argument, however I didn't see it as relevant when people are labeling market behavior as "predatory". It's not to corner people into an easier target so much as to restrict the debate to the issue I take actual exception with. This idea of labeling something as "price gouging" as a moral defense for anything really. If someone owns something then they are free to ask whatever price they want, up to refusing to sell it at all. That's what ownership means. Yes, I agree this is what ownership means in principle. I think the more practical view of ownership is what the current monopolist of violence will let you do with what you possess. The monopolist of violence in most cases being your local government. There are many real-world examples of being regulated in what you can or can not do with what you ostensibly own. Whether that's real estate, natural resources or intellectual property. Even IP has expiration dates defined by regulators. Do those expiration dates incontrovertibly define what is morally right or wrong to do with said IP? Were the regulators directed by divine mandate when setting those expiration dates? Just so I'm fully aware of what we're currently debating, is it this? In which case, here's an example in which I personally believe theft is morally justified. Let's say your family is caught in a natural disaster, and you need fresh water to survive. A local opportunist saw the disaster coming and stockpiled all local water sources at low prices, and is now attempting to sell you water for the reasonable sum when compared to the alternative option of death of your life savings. I'm curious about your position on this intentionally extreme example. Not as a trick question, but because I'd like to know how rigidly you adhere to the concept of ownership being morally just in all cases. If you still believe theft is morally wrong in this case, that's fine - it just means we believe opposite things. If you want to argue that IP is not real ownership and should not exist, then I cannot make a good counter-argument. Except to say that it is the system we have and to eliminate it would simply shift the debate to whatever new business model the video game or textbook publishers switched to. As for your price-gouging case, an ethical quandary would remain if you were completely broke and dying of thirst no matter how reasonably the water was priced. How is it more moral to keep and refuse to sell at any price than to keep unless someone offers you a high enough price? You must either think theft when needed to preserve life is morally justified or not. If I must take a binary position, then yes. Theft when needed to preserve life is morally justified. In fact, it happens every day on a massive scale. Governments around the world seize up to half of what their citizens earn and redistribute it according to the needs of the whole, for example in order to save lives or support those who cannot support themselves for any of a number of reasons. I support the argument that taxation is theft, but not that it is wrong. I want to argue that there is no such thing as real ownership , whether the property in question is physical or intellectual. Practical ownership is only what can be enforced through the monopolization of violence. Governments have the power to assert ownership of their citizens' earnings, but for the most part choose to allow citizens the privilege of keeping a portion of those earnings and pretend that they own the goods and services those earnings pay for. By challenging the reality of ownership, I'm trying to challenge the assertion that piracy is inherently bad because it infringes on ownership and ownership is a fundamental quality of the universe that cannot be rightly infringed upon. That we choose to adopt certain principles, such as that of ownership, and act as if those principles are "true" in order to make sense of the world, is a perfectly legitimate practice, and I don't believe that you are wrong to do so. DocTomoe 3 months ago [—]. I think it is ethically ok to rob diamond stores if somehow you are forced to possess diamonds and diamonds are only available through a prohibitively expensive and exploitative market. Like textbooks written by the professors actually holding the lecture that change tiny bits every semester, especially in information relevant to coursework, to make used textbooks essentially worthless. No we don't do that. One of the most popular questions the first day of class is whether a prior edition of the textbook will suffice. It is very commonly accepted, especially if changes are minor. Authors offer big sweeping improvements to attract buyers. Used textbooks are a robust business. And the simple fact is you are not forced to possess textbooks nor attend the university, no matter how beneficial it may be to do so. This is how people rationalize all forms of crime. This is a good argument. I'll try to speak for others when I say that the problem is with professors who actively engage in predatory behavior to gouge students. I appreciate that's not the norm, but it happens enough to at least be perceived as a major problem. The predatory behavior lies in identifying a group of people who already have considerable sunk cost in their education, and then using a combination of methods such as decreeing a monopoly by assigning your own books, and creating scarcity by insisting on this year's revised edition to force them to purchase material or potentially waste the enormous sunk cost already incurred. You write "we" don't do that, so I'm assuming you're a professor who assigns, and maybe even writes, textbooks. I'm sorry if this whole thread is turning into a personal attack on you. For my part, it absolutely isn't meant to be that. It's an attack on predatory practices that a minority of members of all professions occasionally engage in. This time the profession in question happens to be university professors. I think few people have problems with IP law in and of itself. We have problems with the weaponization of said laws to exploit those in vulnerable positions. I don't see this as defending myself from an attack but as debating the logical basis of an ethical position that strikes me a purely emotional. In my initial comment I already pointed out trying to pick cheap textbooks. But people wanted to go after the easier target of expensive textbooks, so fine. The more people pirate textbooks the more publishers will pivot to a business model where they can make money. Such as with online software instead they're already doing some of that with software like Pearson's MyLab, which forces students to buy the book anyway to get a license. At which point we're back to the same argument about the freedom to set prices. Expensive textbooks are not the easier target, they are the only target. What people find issue with are certain predatory practices by a minority of bad actors. I think it's great that you make an effort to pick more affordable textbooks, and I hope that your students are paying for them. But I started this thread talking about students pirating these cheap textbooks, which got hijacked to feed the expensive textbooks narrative. So property ownership is protected as long as you don't feel you need it? SuoDuanDao 3 months ago [—]. In practise, yes. Monopolising the only water source in town will get your property seized by the majority right quick; why should the legal system pretend otherwise? This is the seller abusing its position to demand the buyer to buy its own product. Not paying for recent version of Windows seems like a poor example, because not paying for spyware is a pretty good principle. The principled thing to do about software you consider spyware is to not use it. Not paying for a paid product you use daily and continuously derive value from is hard to justify in my view. You're forced to use Windows due to multiple reasons. I'm not forced to use Windows at home and I don't have to pay for it at work. You're forced to drink water for much stronger reasons yet you pay for it if you don't dig up your own. I most country's water is free, you pay for the infrastructure that brings it into your household and cleans it. DrSiemer 3 months ago [—]. Digging up and purifying your own water source is a bit more effort than installing a widely available and well documented crack. What does that have to do with anything? But you're still not supposed to do it, right? In most of the world, water in restaurants costs money. In most country's the water is free in restaurant too, you pay for the drinking glass. I dont use windows but I've still paid for multiple licenses unwillingly because it always comes preinstalled on every laptop. This is Microsofts doing. As far as Im concerned this makes pirating windows totally ethical. I did pay for a version of Windows that does not contain spyware, so I am consistent with my principles. Speaking of principles, which principle is responsible for taking a working, perfectly stable OS and releasing "updates" for it that introduce spyware? I just want to make sure we're holding companies accountable to the same degree we're holding individuals. Bancakes 3 months ago [—]. I'd rather donate to w10privacy, ameliorated, and such windows fixing scripts. Using something you consider "spyware", even without paying for it, sounds like just as much of a self-own. As a poor kid in eastern europe i couldn't afford a car. I would steal one as people would have it covered by insurance and the factory makes thousands of copies each month anyway. I know a lot of people who still have such sensitivities, they have money and houses and still steal cars just because that's how the grew up. See, that logic of theft, be it software or hardware, doesn't really make sense. Stealing software is just as bad. Copyright infringement isn't theft or stealing. It's copyright infringement. If you could walk down the street and make a copy of any car you see for free you wouldn't deprive the owner of the car of his property. By copying you deprive the designer of the car the right to the scarcity of cars with his design. Stealing software the same way people steal physical would require the thief to delete all copies of the codebase. This happens through ransomware, not piracy. Except that when you copy something you don't steal an existing copy. If the person were not going to buy something because they couldn't afford it, they're not a lost sale. This means there's no monetary loss for the company selling the software, it might even be beneificial as free marketing. Worth mentioning cars are also insured, so there is no loss for the owner as they get a "refund". That means there is monetary loss for them. The car maker is also happy to sell them a new car. The only people losing are those in between. Just like with software. You know, those people also work for money. I disagree with your way of looking at this, There's monetary loss from the insurance company because someone has to pay someone to make that one specific car that you want to steal, while the software is already written and distribution is free. In the case of software, nobody pays. Hardware, someone always has to pay. The owner of the copyright infringed car would just download his copy of the car again from the manufacturer. Why would insurance be involved? Right after the iron curtain fell was a weird place to live in in Eastern Europe. Its similar to how an american would feel about owning a Japanese good luck flag, or a nazi medal of honor. Couple that with the fact that some software packages were priced as decent cars, it made the decision pretty easy. Not trying to defend it too much, just putting it into perspective so people might understand a bit better why someone from EE might feel the way we sometimes do. AnIdiotOnTheNet 3 months ago [—]. Gabe correctly identified piracy as a service problem a decade ago. People pirate for two reasons: they can't otherwise buy legitimately at a reasonable[0] price, or the legitimate version is less convenient to obtain or use. It used to be people used no-CD cracks because of the inconvenience of inserting a CD even if they legitimately purchased the game. More draconian DRM consistently leads people to use cracks on legitimate game purchases. Hell, I recall at least one developer practically begging their community to crack their game because their publisher forced them to include Denuvo, but they could remove it as soon as a pirated version appeared. DRM punishes your customer. Unfortunately modern technology companies have all but trained users to accept being punished for using their product so this behavior hasn't stopped. It's so true. When it's easier to pirate, the publishers need to sit down and rethink their whole existence. Just like movie theaters left the movie business at some points and entered the popcorn business there might be a reason why Netflix couldn't do without those un-skipables previews. Maybe numbers showed that enough previews triggered more rentals? Which are now absent from naked downloaded DVDs? It was definitely faster. I don't remember what year but a rough guess was maybe There would need to be a lot of previews on the DVD and a lot of peers for the Divx and a beefy connection so a recent movie I suppose though. If your torrent program supports it[0], you can tell it to download the first chunk quarter, file, etc at higher priority than the rest, then watch that while it downloads the second chunk at high priority, and so on basically streaming, except done right rather than as a way to defraud the user out of their downloads. Mindwipe 89 days ago [—]. Gabe literally built a DRM platform. But he correctly identified that if you just said something people want to hear in an interview then even if you operate in literally the exact opposite fashion people adore it. AnIdiotOnTheNet 89 days ago [—]. He literally built a PC game distribution platform that made buying games so convenient it sparked a PC gaming revival and still completely dominates the market. Note that Gabe didn't say DRM was the problem per-se, he said that inconvenience was the problem. Steam's DRM is unnoticed in the vast majority of circumstances. DRM requiring people to insert the CD to play is intrusive. There is a solution for that: family sharing. Maybe something changed but last time I used family sharing would allow only one active game per account at a single time. But you can't go offline and keep playing while slightly risking an abuse detection. You can do the same, or at least could, with 'free weekend' games and play as long as you don't go online. Another limitation is that this sharing isn't enabled for all games especially competitive online games the system was widely abused by hackers to avoid bans. You can in offline mode. Gabe's DRM platform isn't as bad as the rest! That's the thing: he saw a service problem and tried to solve it best he could. Steam's DRM is way less intrusive than Denuvo. Does valve even really try to counter the steam DRM defeats? I know like a decade ago, steam emulators existed that could replace the steam DLLs for offline games or potentially, but more risky: online games that don't rely on valve's servers. I've not looked into it since, but honestly I'd be totally unsurprised if they never engaged in a war with the pirates on those tools, and they are no harder these days. My impression has always been that the Steam DRM is more intended to prevent casual copying than to be a real piracy deterrent. This meshes with games on steam often including more invasive DRM systems on top of the Steam one. What about all the piracy that happened because of intrusive DRM? It certainly prevented that kind of piracy. I can confirm that cracking the Steam DRM is as easy as ever. In this case Denuvo isn't intrusive either. Even the cracker says that. The DRM causing the issue is a piece of Capcom software. Of course you can apply Denuvo over top of Steam's DRM, but the 'normal' Steam DRM is very easy to remove or emulate if you're learning to reverse-engineer it's actually a pretty good commercial target to learn on and doesn't contain a bunch of dumb triggers executing huge chunks of virtualized code constantly during gameplay. Opposite of what? He identified a service problem, he solved a service problem. It worked. DRM is unrelated. A lean DRM platform that doesn't get in the way and it's not mandatory. There are DRM free games on Steam. The Witcher and now cyberpunk series is the proof of that: insanely successful sale wise and 0 drm of any kind. Make a good game and it'll sale. It helps that they have predicable pricing models. This is great for people like me. I have no problem paying for day-one access for a game I really want to play on the first day Cyberpunk , but I'll often load up on games when they hit that "bargain bin" price so that I have a backlog of potentially fun games to play. Except the latter is not good, just aggressively marketed. It's just as good as the witcher and exhibits precisely the same strengths and flaws, just in a different setting. Especially with regards to the day one state of the game and patching not really doing all that much in the first year. That's a "taste" thing. I think it's a great game It's more of an immersive sim than an RPG. It even encourages stealth play heavily in a lot of missions with explicit optional goals and by the way many mechanics are designed in general. If enemies were more intelligent about looking for the player instead of just standing around when becoming suspicious it could easily match the best of the genre like Deus Ex. Sadly CDPR seems to be fixing the wrong things. They even took out great accidental mechanics like the dodge boost, which was incredibly fun and added a lot of depth to the way you could move around the city. A lot of places aren't even accessible without it. You aren't supposed to go there, but a lot of areas reachable with just the double jump a bugged, too. Even without any mods you can reach a few out of bounds areas I think removing the dodge boost is as if id had "fixed" the double jump instead of rolling with it. Similar with the slide invincibility glitch. I can see why they fixed that, but some way to jump from great highs is really necessary in a place as vertical as Night City. They replaced it with.. They also made most consumables useless by roving the ability to disassemble them instead of fixing the economy. There's literally no point in any of the drinks now. You also can't re-roll the stats of any legendary gear you find, so if it doesn't have any slots for mods it's useless. And other things. I honestly think that it was a better game at version 1. Performance was better, too. Plus, I enjoyed Cyberpunk more than Witcher, even after trying all 3. I didn't refund them, but I sure thought about it. People like to cite hugely successful products being DRM-Free or something as proof that it works, but for every project that works well there's hundreds that die in obscurity. Also, people like to back a champion to "prove that it works" which inflates the margins of the champion product. You can measure how many players have pirated the game but not how many of them wouln't have bothered at all if they had had to pay for it. Take a person that has pirated many games, how do you know which ones they would have actually paid for? Even if you knew the ones they play the most, it woulnd't necessarily translate to a buy in the same order. You can see the deficit of the pirated copies sales vs the non-pirated copies sales. Other factors such as play time and ratings also allow you to understand what sales would have been. Ubisoft games require installing a 3rd party gamestore Ubisoft Connect which people might be reluctant to install. On others I've come close to losing access to the account or just failing authentication where I have to crack a game I paid for to finish playing it. RoyalBingBong 3 months ago [—]. How can you have concrete data of something that didn't happen? A copy that didn't sell can not count towards sales. If it is based on sales estimation, then it could simply mean that the game didn't sell well because it was bad. Not every unsold copy of an estimation is automatically a pirated copy. It's totally possible for a game to be cracked to accept a fake licence key, yet still have connect to an update server or what have you. That way the publishers end up easily seeing the amount of copies in the wild vs actual sales. Keygens tend to be based on the cracker reverse engineering the licence key check algorithm, and then just spitting out a bunch of keys that fit it. Most people will pick the first key the keygen creates, which makes it easy to track the pirated copies. The only way around the wholesale pirating of games is to make the game totally nerfed unless it can connect to a 'server'. This is why most AAA games all have at least some level of online features. That still doesn't tell you if whoever pirated the game would have bought the game, which is the point OP was making. That's the interesting question that's hard to get an answer for. You can track diffs between releases of a franchise, if you have enough releases. Sorry, but even if you know that both releases should have sold roughly the same from past sales that doesn't mean it has to stay true forever. For example, the platform might've become obsolete, people got better things to play than rehash , other sales channels became more popular, pirating to work around issues with intrusive DRM, dissatisfaction with past products, and many other possible reasons. Maybe the full data is more convincing, but ultimately you can't really know whether someone playing your game would've bought it other than if they did. If, for example, each iteration of some franchise sells less with more pirating going on, it probably means your fans don't appreciate the way things developed and just want to see where their once beloved franchise is going. Assassin's Creed used to be one of the best in gaming, but for me it's not even worth pirating any more. Should've developed the current-year story like it was foreshadowed in AS2, but the whole idea of training Miles using the animus to defeat abstergo was jus dropped to milk the fans once a year. Doesn't surprise me when people stop buying in such a case. What games prompt you for a license key these days? I haven't seen that in a very long time. This seems like a pretty reductive take. An Ubisoft-sized company, having all the relevant data and having a huge incentive to learn everything that can be learned from it, is surely going to have some idea of the scope of the problem. I mean, tons of people on this page are saying DRM doesn't reduce piracy and serves no purpose. But it's hard to make that position jive with the fact that the companies with tons of data on how DRM affects their bottom line keep paying for it. On the other hand, many people refuse to buy anything with DRM on it, or wait for the massively-reduced "game of the year" edition that comes out a few years down the line, when a crack to remove DRM is available. If you were to walk into a store that said "please support the creator" as payment, your shelves would be empty. Or in other words if software costed no money and always relied on donation, you'd be bankrupt. But, you can't stop crackers. Bits of memory are bits of memory. They can be changed. The balance is making games highly available, and having content beyond just the base game. Such as online play, or physical merchandise with the purchase. If I got a poster every time I bought a game id be liable to buy more games that I may not even play. Yes, but that's because when you take a physical good off the shelf there isn't still a copy on the shelf. Software does not have this problem. There are obvious examples that contradict your point: Linus and The Toady One come immediately to mind. Though, admittedly, they are outliers. I believe the cases of steep sales drop were observed at the moment when a cracked game binary appeared. No game studio would want to spend resources developers work and licensing cost implementing anti-piracy for nothing. Shosty 3 months ago [—]. My first developer position was at an audio software company that made a plugin used by EDM artists. Support tickets also nearly quadrupled including a massive increase in refund requests and chargebacks because customers realized they could get it for free instead. ReFX Nexus perchance? If not it's another example of the crack destroying sales. How did the company cope? They are doing exactly that. Pretty much all research has shown that DRM schemes are ineffective and mostly just cause problems for legitimate users. The reason for DRM is mostly 1. Cargo culting. Liability ass-covering we did our best, it's the DRM company fault our game leaked! The crackers who break the DRM just find it an amusing puzzle to solve, and the pirates who use what the crackers create never suffer the annoying side effects of the DRM thanks to the crackers work. Legitimate buyers on the other hand have to deal with situations where their paid for game literally won't run for them without a crack being installed because of DRM or broken-by-design anti-cheats. I know this from first-hand experience. Some of my paid games run fine after DRM removal cracks are applied, despite breaking in various fun ways prior to that. Movies publishers does it as well DRMs on movies media since decades and we all know this have absolutely no effect : every movie is available on p2p networks even before being available in stores. So it would not be surprising to have a similar situation there. AussieWog93 3 months ago [—]. Apparently a lot of devs included SecuROM in their products not as an actual hindrance to pirates, but to placate investors who are concerned about piracy reducing sales. The people who actually make the software are fully aware that any DRM will be cracked within 48 hours of release with a few small exceptions. As far as I know SecuROM is popular because it takes a bit longer to crack, thus helping the publishers secure the critical sales of the first week. Afterwards many studios remove it again to make it actually playable. I guess that's also why AAA games are hyped so much before release, so that many people preorder it. Ahh, fair enough. Never thought about it this way, but it does make perfect sense. Context here is computer games? If you had read the article from the thread you cited and proposed as proof you'd know the study dealt with music, books, movies and games. That's why I posted it. Sorry, was threw off by the wording and misreading between the lines I guess. All good, thanks - and I could definitely have been more detailed in why and how I referenced it. Did what I had to when broke and poor, now am happy to give extra when I can. With companies releasing broken games like this and 50gb day one patches that still don't fix shit, these days it's the game companies that don't have my trust, not the other way around. I used to get into Early Access on Steam and we all saw the cesspool of forever-betas in that shit. In fact to this day, 10 years later I think, warframe is still in beta, and I dont think a single game I ever EA'd made it to production, all were thieves. Chucklefish was a great example of that. Jesus and they have control over the forums too so no dissent allowed. They never finished the game but posted pics of their new multi million dollar studio and new houses. Anyway sorry but fuck games these days. Edit-spells and stuff. Exactly when I was poor in my late teens and early twenties I pirated lots of games and software adobe, etc. Now with a good job and financial stability I have no interest in piracy. DRM does seem to punish paying customers meanwhile those who will crack the game and pirate still find a way. I still pirate movies sometimes because, due to HDCP, none of the streaming services work with my computer. Unfortunately, all the DVD rental places are gone now, too. Can someone knowledgeable explain why DRM functions would be called on every zombie kill? I guess I don't have a good understanding on how these DRM checks are implemented in games in general. GuB 3 months ago [—]. DRM calls are sprinkled everywhere inside the code, usually statically linked or even inlined. This is to make it harder for crackers to identify them. Here they put some in the zombie kill routine, but I don't think there is anything special about zombie kills. It could have been anything: picked up ammo, loading a map, pass a certain event, on a timer, during a save, all of the above, etc I don't have a deep knowledge about the technology involved but from what I've seen modern DRM like Denuvo are based on virtual machines and are very flexible, allowing all sorts of checks at many points. Done well, there is little overhead, but some overzealous publishers do frequent lengthy checks, killing performance. If there is little overhead, then the game is cracked easily as the checks are rare and easily found. For the DRM to hold up the checks need to be frequent, hard to pin down and in practice that means in performance critical, complex code that can behave in unexpected ways. Developers do that. And yes, I am aware that in this particular case, for RE:Village, the developer and publisher are the same. I would think it very odd if publishers were not given the source code. If you were a publisher, would you want some small shop to be able to disappear off the face of the Earth, preventing you from ever doing even simple ports and patches? That actually happens a lot. It has the same slowndowns it used to have on PSX, but somehow, worse, the game runs quite poorly during combat, stuttering when there is any new sprite on the screen. I think they lost the source code, and made an emulator just f or this game, to allow them to shove the new "remastered" assets in the remastered assets are just AI-processed backgrounds SahAssar 3 months ago [—]. Neither of those examples have anything to do with if a publisher was given access to the source. Those seem to be more about those games being developed in a time when source control and backups were handled more loosely within the industry as a whole. And that does not only apply to games, certain parts of MS office do not have source available anymore so MS has done binary patches to fix bugs, pixar almost lost part of a movie but an employee happened to have a offsite copy at their home. One of the developers involved in that described the problems they had with the video quality, the originals where lost, the best they could do was extract videos from the PlayStation port and try different AI up scaling algorithms. The result isn't pretty. The best they could do is recreate and rerender the videos, but that's probably too costly for EA's typical remaster project. Which would almost certainly have required different actors, given the 25 years since the original release, and I imagine that would have cause a huge uproar in addition to being fairly expensive. Out of scope, sure, but I agree that that option prevents "extract old video from the production version and try to upscale it automatically" from qualifying as "the best they could do". ChoGGi 89 days ago [—]. Sure, that's fair. Negitivefrags 3 months ago [—]. Depending on the contract, publishers might have the ability to get a copy of the source code, but they certainly are not going to be monkeying around with it. Doing a full build from scratch of a game is a complicated thing. The build systems at a game studios are quite extensive. Even if you were given access to the version control repositories for a game I think it would probably take you quite a long time to be able to successfully export and build everything from scratch. I imagine the DRM is contracted out to a company which the publisher uses for more of their games. The DRM guy or gal comes in a couple days around the end of development, imports some libraries, and sprinkles some function calls here and there. Not that I'm in the know, but it seems likely that publishers can get code into the binary one way or the other. The DRM in this case, Denuvo, is a framework. One that is very finicky to work with and it has a gazzilion of different API's which are variants of same basic thing, but when compiled it goes into different code machine. Also, strictly speaking, is not the programmers that embed Denuvo in the game, is the level designers. They are the one who select where in the game the checks are made. And crackers, until they don't get to that point in game, they have no idea that what's ahead is legit game code or just another Denuvo trap to trigger something game crash, patch previous cracked portion of game, corrupt saves, etc etc - the possibilities to fuck with the cracker are limited only by imagination. That's why cracking takes time when it comes to Denuvo, because is a tedious step-by-step dissembling boring job. I can imagine disaster if someone inlines the wrong function here. Why can inlining functions cause disasters? Just instruction cache misses, or other things as well? My guess is they want intermittent checks, but don't trust the system clock to advance, but a zombie kill is evidence that time has advanced for the player. Seems like it shouldn't block the main game thread and there should be a longer time to live for that check, and maybe those are the bugs. Do some cracks rely on preventing the system clock from advancing? Generally in a software system you can't count on a time source to move forward , to move in consistent intervals, or to move at all. In a system that is designed to be resistant to attack, it actually makes a lot of sense to instead rely on a desirable event critical to progression. Especially one that occurs relatively infrequently and is likely associated with a lot of other complex calculations. I think this is pretty smart. I think I understand the theory. If I was a cracker though, I would think that patching out the system clock calls in order to prevent DRM checks would have a lot of game-breaking unintended side-effects animations, other time-based mechanics, etc. And if that was the case, it would be a perfect place to trigger the DRM calls, since a cracker couldn't patch the system time calls without breaking the game. Thus, disabling wall-time accesses for a crack should have little influence on game timing and animations. That makes sense to use monotonic counters for game mechanics. I think the point still stands in that case though: if the DRM calls were tied to the same time source as the animation system, you couldn't patch one without breaking the other. That's assuming you couldn't selectively patch the calls, but yes, sounds as though it would be harder. More that the function calls for the system clock are fairly easy to trace back to find these DRM hooks. In the late 90s early s for some stuff you didn't need cracks, you could often literally just set the system clock back to Scoundreller 3 months ago [—]. If there was a free trial, yes. NickNameNick 3 months ago [—]. If the DRM code was cleanly separated from the normal flow of the game code, it would be trivial for crackers to patch it out. Evidently it's still trivial for crackers to patch it out. I wouldn't say it's trivial. I think publishers should be happy with that. Yeah, a lot of publishers voluntarily remove DRM from their games after a few months because most of the profit is made right at launch. Once the first round of discounts start to hit DRM serves no purpose anymore. It's even better! You sign a contract with denuvo for how many days protection. The less days the less you pay. When the contract is up they remove it. I have never heard of this. Do you have any examples? Search for "Denuvo removed" on Google. Lots of recent examples. Capcom themselves did it with the rerelease of RE2 and RE3. Rapzid 89 days ago [—]. Steam wish list. Thanks Capcom! Operyl 3 months ago [—]. Publishers put this DRM in place only as a short-term measure, removing it within a year in almost all cases after the majority of their sales are well gone. They do this in the hope to convincing people who might pirate the game to ultimately purchase it, which I'm assuming must work to some extent or they wouldn't pay the rather high costs of Denuvo, etc. People who want to play the game online or are hyped and preorder it 2. People who want to play it but are happy to wait for a sale 4. People who will never buy the game, but will play a cracked version Group 2 is pretty huge, and includes age groups who care a lot about cosmetic items online teenagerss. I'm under the impression that the group of people who if they can pirate something, will do so and never buy it, but if they can't, will just buy it, is quite small indeed. MrStonedOne 3 months ago [—]. Every time it comes out that a pirate version fixes things broken in the mainline version, esp if drm is what broke it, I slide more firmly into always pirate category. Do people in the "always pirate category" buy games that they can't pirate, though? Or do they just skip those games and play different ones instead? That describes me. I pirated lots of games when I was still into gaming. I bought Tribes 2, for example, because of course you can't pirate it if you want to play online and it's a multiplayer-only shooter. Same for e. PUBG and one or two others. On the other hand I've only played the original Call of Duty and BF, and have neither paid for nor pirated any of the sequels of either. Frankly most AAA games actually really suck. I generally won't buy single player games I can't pirate. The reason for this is they either have some online only bullshit, which is unacceptable in a single player game, or some DRM performance degrading virus. The only game I pirated in the last 10 or so years was Metro Exodus because it was removed from the Steam store just before launch. I waited until I could buy it for ridiculously dirt cheap on sale literally a tiny fraction of full asking price because their actions at launch destroyed my willingness to pay full price. Had they done things differently, they easily could have had me as a happy full price purchaser. Interesting, does this mean DRM functions are forced inline when compiled? Not just that. I'm not an expert, but from what I read, some DRMs will encrypt assets and critical game logic and let them be decrypted in real time on a virtual machine so that they aren't directly extractable from memory. Once is in memory, encrypted or not, it can be extracted, inspected and replaced which is what a launcher crack style does. Yes, but figuring this out can still take a long time. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory survived for over days before being cracked. It can be useful to break the game in subtle ways so that the crackers have a harder time knowing when the crack is fully done. Perhaps Capcom thought to perhaps aptly? I bet that all development and testing was done using stubs for those DRM hooks, which were probably developed by a different team closer to the shipping date, and once they were integrated it was too late to do anything about them. Also, whenever anyone at the studio tries to debug the stutter, the DRM freaks out, so they have to test on a non-DRM version. Let me preface this by saying that different publishers likely have different implementations of Denuvo checks, and also there are lots of different iterations of Denuvo. But from what I've seen there are quite a number of titles with performance impacts out of using Denuvo. Overlord Gaming [1] has some videos with before and after comparisons for games where Denuvo got removed by the publisher. Of course, there could potentially be differences in test methodology or other stuff in the Denuvo removal patches, but there is some pretty interesting findings, eg. Also a notorious case: Final Fantasy XV famously could run the full game using the demo binary, this is how it was "cracked" before launch, when players realized the demo binary could run the preloaded content before release. Only AFTER the official launch, performance complaints started, then people realized the official launch binary, that has Denuvo, has performance issues, while the demo binary, that has no DRM, runs perfectly fine, using the exact same data. DRM: make your product worse for your paying customers. I do not blame a company for trying to protect their investment. I don't really blame them for wanting to prevent piracy, but I absolutely blame them for implementing it in a way that degrades the game only for paying customers. SahAssar 89 days ago [—]. The absurd point here and in many other cases is that paying customers get a worse experience than those who pirate. For some games I've paid for a game but then still pirated it because the pirated copy removed things like unwanted software uplay, etc. I just want to pay for a game but still get a reasonable experience so for me paying and pirating can make sense. Paying customers get worse experience than pirates. Your software lifespan is reduced. Worst if you use 3rd party DRM. So I see the intent, but not the logic. Their point is that literally all broken DRM like this does is punish paying customers and encourage piracy. Do you ignore the terms of software licenses that you don't like? If not, what's the difference? I vote with my wallet. I go out of my way to buy DRM-free stuff. Here here. I haven't bought Sony since their rootkit fiasco; and I basically only buy games from gog. By the same logic a broken lock on a store's door does literally nothing except prevent customers from entering the store to buy stuff. Sure, but this is just a risk of having security. The solution is to fix the problem, not discard locks and security. Also one might argue there are second-order benefits to the paying customers, like lower prices and more products being offered since the seller can make more money. DMC 3 never worked and you had to mod it to make your controller work properly. Wait until you read about capcom. I don't trust any japanese company to make good PC games. I have never played Lost Planet 3. This is pretty good for how fast the game got cracked. For context, this is Denuvo 11, the latest version, and the game came out on May 7, So a little over 2 months. Publishers want to protect first month of sales, which is the biggest one for projects like RE heavily advertised offline games. So, I would consider it a success. This sounds about right given RE Village is now on sale on Steam etc. But she didn't work on the crack for two month, she started about two weeks ago and even that didn't work full time on it due to her personal life. Ygg2 3 months ago [—]. One day, companies will realize releasing subpar product and charging for it is not the sanest business model. Took the music industry a few decades to learn that suing your fans is bad for business. The music industry continues to blame illegal downloading and Apple strong arm tactics for its perceived profit loss. Hollywood has taken the music industry example to heart and is stonewalling Netflix to make sure it continues to maintain the upper hand over streaming services. Good luck with that - people aren't that fussy about the content when they want to veg out in front of the TV, and recently I've been watching netflix exclusives almost exclusively. Yet another example of a "pirate" product being superior to the "genuine" version. There is certainly fewer reasons to pirate games today than in the past. Three major things have changed since the '90s. First is the advent of free to play games. While some are filled with dark patterns, many are very much playable for "freeloaders". Second is the sales. It was unusual in the past to have games for few dollars. Nowadays it's the norm. With Steam Sales and similar sales on other platforms, you can buy many AAA quality games for just a few dollars. Recent releases can be had for reduced prices too. Third is the giveaways. Especially with Epic, but to some extent with GOG and Steam, it's very easy to have "games to play" these days. I have over games on Epic and I didn't pay anything for them. So this crack disables DRM In general cracks are more like to run in WINE, yes. ChuckMcM 3 months ago [—]. This is typical. DRM doesn't deter or hurt pirates, and according to the EU[1] piracy doesn't hurt sales either, all that DRM does is to create support problems and hurt legitimate paying customers. FIX: disambiguate 'it'. Your "it" is ambiguous. Piracy doesn't hurt sales, but DRM certainly does. Fixed, thanks! The typical story of DRM is that roughly the first month of launch, where the DRM still isn't cracked, is responsible for a lot of sales. Those people become sales because of DRM. Where not having DRM would have lost the sale to piracy. It means you can win without being water-tight. Because most people admit that DRM will eventually be cracked. ChuckMcM 89 days ago [—]. You read the EU report right? People who buy cracked copies of software do not, in general, ever pay for that software certainly not retail anyway. There was also a great study on the impact to piracy by Netflix which showed a huge decrease in piracy of DVDs when the cost to view them was reduced to something people were willing to pay. The economics have been demonstrated many many times that the market segments into what people are willing to pay for a product, and if your retail price is higher than the bulk of the market's willingness to pay, then you get either piracy copies which generate no revenue of if you could have perfect DRM, no revenue. The only difference between the two scenarios is how many copies are in circulation, not the amount of revenue that was made on selling the product. The non-intuitive result is the for creative works books, movies, video games having more copies in circulation enhances revenue because subjective reviews heavily influence buying decisions in the market. This was starkly demonstrated in the London publisher's conference where publishers have all experienced that highly pirated books are more likely to be best sellers than non-pirated books. That works because more people who actually buy the book will have a better chance of having heard something positive about it before they buy it. The markets have been dealing with DRM and non-DRM digital products for over 30 years now, there is a LOT of data that shows two things; DRM causes more problems for legitimate users than prevent piracy, and piracy has zero impact on the total revenue received from the digital products. Why even bother implementing DRM if it gets cracked anyways? People who cannot afford the game won't buy it even if DRM was perfect. This is also supported by the EU study that was here on HN recently. Ciantic 3 months ago [—]. Good point. I think there might be a win-win solution: If DRM degrades the experience so much, they should release a patch e. Qub3d 89 days ago [—]. Now whether this actually helps sales is still out for debate -- some data points to piracy ultimately increasing lifetime sales of a product see: Microsoft Windows. Just imagine if you could simply prove the ownership of a game using well-understood multidecade-old cryptography in a new way. That's what I hope GameStop[0] can become. Or whoever else. Additeddly it would only prevent piracy and not cheating, but hey! TameAntelope 3 months ago [—]. What expertise does GameStop suddenly have? I'm aware of their recent flood of cash, but isn't their expertise in retail brick-and-mortar? Or is the expectation that they'll somehow pivot from that to I guess crypto? Aren't there dozens, hundreds, of companies in the crypto space already? Did they buy one of them at least, or are they legitimately trying to build a crypto company from the ground up, with no stated innovation or insight into crypto? From the best I can gather, the new CEO is trying to pivot GameStop from a brick-and-mortar company with online presence, to a tech company with a brick-and-mortar presence. Cryptographically proven digital ownership of content has been games or in-game content , with freedom of resale, had been a long discussed topic in crypto communities for years. They have not given any details yet, but I do hope that it can be it. Scaling is still an issue, tho. I could barely even watch the demo. Never could even since I was a kid. Dunno if you realized this, but once online-only games become unprofitable, the servers are down for good and the games become useless. If all games up to this point were like this, we wouldn't be able to play childhood games anymore. An online requirement is pretty easy to patch out after a while. Obviously you trust the developer to actually do it, and I wish more would. A good distributor could prove that they are reliable and patch away the online requirement after a year or so. After all DRM is usually about protecting a first crucial period of sales. I see it more as a movie ticket for brief entertainment. It's an unfortunate state of affairs - but I'd rather have 1 year of non-stuttering gameplay than a perpetual re-playable but flawed game if I'm forced to choose. Man that's a bleak view of games if you're ok with them being relevant for a couple of years so you can get brief entertainment. Might as well train an AI to constantly spew images and sounds that you like at you and call it a day. First year unplayable because of bugs, then a brief lifetime as you finish it single player or the user count dwindles multi player. Hacker News new past comments ask show jobs submit. Resident Evil Village crack completely fixes its stuttering issues dsogaming. Tenoke 3 months ago [—] Other kids in Bulgaria literally made fun of me for buying WoW with summer job money, even though it was the one popular game that was complete crap pirated. TeMPOraL 3 months ago [—] What others said plus diamonds are only valuable because they're absurdly expensive. TeMPOraL 3 months ago [—] I consider natural diamonds specifically to be a scam, where paintings aren't, because both the symbolism and the scarcity of them were created by a single company, through a very long and thorough marketing effort. DocTomoe 3 months ago [—] I think it is ethically ok to rob diamond stores if somehow you are forced to possess diamonds and diamonds are only available through a prohibitively expensive and exploitative market. SuoDuanDao 3 months ago [—] In practise, yes. DrSiemer 3 months ago [—] Digging up and purifying your own water source is a bit more effort than installing a widely available and well documented crack. DocTomoe 3 months ago [—] Bancakes 3 months ago [—] I'd rather donate to w10privacy, ameliorated, and such windows fixing scripts. AnIdiotOnTheNet 89 days ago [—] He literally built a PC game distribution platform that made buying games so convenient it sparked a PC gaming revival and still completely dominates the market. Mindwipe 89 days ago [—] In this case Denuvo isn't intrusive either. DocTomoe 3 months ago [—] On the other hand, many people refuse to buy anything with DRM on it, or wait for the massively-reduced "game of the year" edition that comes out a few years down the line, when a crack to remove DRM is available. Shosty 3 months ago [—] Yep. AussieWog93 3 months ago [—] Apparently a lot of devs included SecuROM in their products not as an actual hindrance to pirates, but to placate investors who are concerned about piracy reducing sales. AussieWog93 3 months ago [—] Ahh, fair enough. GuB 3 months ago [—] DRM calls are sprinkled everywhere inside the code, usually statically linked or even inlined. SahAssar 3 months ago [—] Neither of those examples have anything to do with if a publisher was given access to the source. Negitivefrags 3 months ago [—] Depending on the contract, publishers might have the ability to get a copy of the source code, but they certainly are not going to be monkeying around with it. Scoundreller 3 months ago [—] If there was a free trial, yes. NickNameNick 3 months ago [—] If the DRM code was cleanly separated from the normal flow of the game code, it would be trivial for crackers to patch it out. Rapzid 89 days ago [—] Steam wish list. Operyl 3 months ago [—] Publishers put this DRM in place only as a short-term measure, removing it within a year in almost all cases after the majority of their sales are well gone. MrStonedOne 3 months ago [—] Every time it comes out that a pirate version fixes things broken in the mainline version, esp if drm is what broke it, I slide more firmly into always pirate category. SahAssar 89 days ago [—] The absurd point here and in many other cases is that paying customers get a worse experience than those who pirate. Ygg2 3 months ago [—] One day, companies will realize releasing subpar product and charging for it is not the sanest business model. Scoundreller 3 months ago [—] Took the music industry a few decades to learn that suing your fans is bad for business. ChuckMcM 3 months ago [—] This is typical. ChuckMcM 3 months ago [—] Fixed, thanks! Ciantic 3 months ago [—] Good point. TameAntelope 3 months ago [—] What expertise does GameStop suddenly have? fifa 22 cheat table
will red dead redemption 2 save with cheats
skyrim best weather mod for frostfall
how to get missions on gta 5 story mode
魔獸世界2秘籍PC
Como Instalar Mods en Minecraft PC 1.12.2
Mods Para Minecraft Windows 10 1.16
Warzone黑客是否被禁止了
使命召喚黑色操作3第3人模式
Daylight中國鞭炮死了
what can you do with graham cracker crust
MINECRAFT SPICTOR模式下載
euro truck simulator 2 teleport
尼爾自動機黑客籌碼
how to add mods to minecraft windows 10
如何傳送到最後的死亡MINECRAFT
how to get mods in minecraft forge
destiny 2 banshee 44 mods today
如何啟用作弊MINECRAFT服務器
how to get aimbot in roblox mm2