Hacking Why add anti-piracy measures to Devolution ?

[DEFIANT]

Just because less people are using it because of the Anti-p doesn't mean there's less attention. You now have the attention of people who are going to look at this like a challenge. The better you make it and the more pirates/people who want to use this but can't will create an outcry for this to be hacked. Like I said it's only a matter of time.

I'm not trying to call you out on it, it's your code, your time, but I've seen how the system works. Someone will come along and it will be done. Where there's a will there's a way. When you did this it was never a matter of if but when.

 

[megazig]

wiismodrome: can you edit all your misinformation posts about the AP breaking the game from working as it is clearly not even doing the AP check at that point yet? it's just bad info that people are basing some arguments on

 

[wiismodrome]

Believe me, we know.
I have explained in detail (several times) why your theory is wrong.
Jacobeian successfully guessed in the original thread what the issue was before I even explained it.
Now Rydian has drawn an accurate diagram to help explain it, and you still insist that your theory of AP being the root of the problem is correct.

We do? Are we a plural entity now?

I am often wrong... most people are. I have no problem with that. I question my views constantly. The way to get things right is to change your mind when you have found out that you were wrong. Logic is one good way to accomplish that. What is important is knowing which particular notions you were wrong about.

However, where pre-r100 revisions of Devolution are considered, I do not think that I am wrong with regard to the three following claims:

1. I do not think I am wrong in claiming that Rogue Leader failed to pass the AP check.
2. I do not think that I am wrong in claiming that Devolution failed to launch the game.

and finally, the following claim applies to all versions of the application in question which contain an AP check

3. I do not think that I am wrong in claiming that Devolution will not launch a game which has failed the AP check.

If any of these claims are incorrect, please explain why.

 

[megazig]

it didn't fail to pass the AP check because it didn't get to the AP check. it died during the apploader portion before getting to the AP

you are correct that it didn't launch the game. this is not due to the AP though, it's due to the apploader dying.

 

[tueidj]

If any of these claims are incorrect, please explain why.

I already have, multiple times. Other people understand it, obviously you don't and I don't think repeating myself will change that.

There was absolutely no change to the verification routine in r100 or any other later revisions so far. If you are as open-minded as you say, that fact alone should be enough to make you see that you are wrong.

 

[wiismodrome]

Which, if any, are incorrect?

 

[megazig]

I shall just assume you to be trolling then if you don't read the answers provided

 

[wiismodrome]

it didn't fail to pass the AP check because it didn't get to the AP check. it died during the apploader portion before getting to the AP

you are correct that it didn't launch the game. this is not due to the AP though, it's due to the apploader dying.

This prompts a number of questions about the specific sequence of events leading up to the AP check and then following that to launching the game. Is loading the game's apploader part of the AP check or does it occur before the AP check? The chart displayed earlier only mentions the program failing upon "intialize disc", which does not specify exactly what that entails. If loading the apploader is part of the AP check, and this failed, then it stands to reason that the game failed the AP check.

 

[megazig]

before the AP check. it'll create a blank dvv file while it's doing other init stuff wrt memcard and iso. then it'll do the apploader. then it'll do the AP

the apploader is part of the game/disc. not part of devolution or its AP. it sets up memory for the real game binary

 

[wiismodrome]

Currently, what I have to go on is this, which is a very sketchy claim:

Have you even looked at the logs? It's obvious there is a lot of startup work that is necessary prior to launching a game (hint: look for the "apploader" which I've mentioned about a dozen times now), most of which is done before the verification. If that startup process fails then the verification step is irrelevant.

Earlier I asked to a link to the logs mentioned above and received no response. In other words I was willing to look at the evidence, but none was provided.

 

[tueidj]

I'm going to start replying with quotes because the answers to your questions have already been posted.

you still insist that your theory of AP being the root of the problem is correct.

1. I do not think I am wrong in claiming that Rogue Leader failed to pass the AP check.
If any of these claims are incorrect, please explain why.

Have you even looked at the logs? It's obvious there is a lot of startup work that is necessary prior to launching a game (hint: look for the "apploader" which I've mentioned about a dozen times now), most of which is done before the verification. If that startup process fails then the verification step is irrelevant.

 

[wiismodrome]

Also, there needs to be a clear distinction made here between the disc verification procedure and the AP check before launching the game. What I am talking about is the fact that RL never passed the disc verification procedure.

 

[tueidj]

Earlier I asked to a link to the logs mentioned above and received no response. In other words I was willing to look at the evidence, but none was provided.

When did you ask for logs that you can easily reproduce yourself?

 

[wiismodrome]

Where did I "insist that AP was the root of the problem"? I do no recall making that specific claim.

 

[wiismodrome]

When did you ask for logs that you can easily reproduce yourself?

It was with the earlier revisions where RL failed to pass disc verification. I have no means to make logs using the loader used for those versions (no USB Gecko). Only after that was network logging added.

 

[megazig]

At this point in the Gamecube's life cycle, it is difficult to find sufficient justification for anti-piracy measures. Practically no GC games are currently available at retail, so there is no weight to the argument that developers will not be compensated for their work. Any revenue generated at this point will only occur in the used market. The only rationale seems to be ideological at its base.

There is also an important distinction to be made between what is legal and what is ethical. Just because certain laws are in place in no way justifies that such laws are reasonable or ethical. Further, there is a lot of room for criticism of intellectual property laws, particularly where old software is concerned. I would argue that copyright should only hold for a short time - perhaps as short as five years - before IP goes into the public domain. This move would actually serve to promote ingenuity by allowing others to freely build upon past work. The IP laws presently in place are largely a result of lobbying by media conglomerates that have greedily swayed courts to extend IP protections far longer than justifiable, all to ensure a well over a lifetime of profit - life plus 70 years is absurd.

Finally, I have personally found that Devolution’s AP does not work properly. It will not recognize a clean 1:1 rip of Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader. So, as if often the case, once again AP measures have served to stop rightful owners from playing their legitimately purchased games.

this sounds like you're saying AP stops the game from working

edit: it wasn't disc verification that failed. it was the apploader
edit2: if there was no AP, your game still wouldn't have worked at that time. so, it wasn't AP or disc verification stopping it

 

[tueidj]

Where did I "insist that AP was the root of the problem"? I do no recall making that specific claim.

It is relevant because what needs to be established here is the temporal order of events which need to occur for a game to be launched. If the AP check must occur and succeed before a game is launched and the AP check fails, then the cause of the failure to launch cannot be the game crashing, because the existence of a failed AP check .dvv would cause the game to fail to launch. Further, because a game must launch before it can crash, a game which has failed to launch cannot crash. Thus, the game crashing cannot be the cause of the failure here.

 

[wiismodrome]

this sounds like you're saying AP stops the game from working

edit: it wasn't disc verification that failed. it was the apploader

Actually, I would suggest that disc verfication was not successful and that the apploader failed (perhaps causing the verification procedure to fail).

It is relevant because what needs to be established here is the temporal order of events which need to occur for a game to be launched. If the AP check must occur and succeed before a game is launched and the AP check fails, then the cause of the failure to launch cannot be the game crashing, because the existence of a failed AP check .dvv would cause the game to fail to launch. Further, because a game must launch before it can crash, a game which has failed to launch cannot crash. Thus, the game crashing cannot be the cause of the failure here.

Okay, that was poorly worded. I should have made a clear distinction between the disc verification check and the AP check at game launch. I still hold to the claim that RL failed the disc verification check with earlier revisions. Now, if you are correct that it failed the disc check because the game's apploader crashed, then that would explain why it failed. But I do not see how it proves that it did not actually fail the disc verification check, as it certainly did not pass the verification test.

However, I will accept that, in itself, this does not necessarily imply that it is the fault of the AP. It could be that an attempt to launch the game would have failed regardless. However, in this case it appears that the apploader crash occured somewhere during an AP process rather than in-game, but it would have crashed regardless due to an unrelated incompatibility. Would you agree?

 

[SifJar]

Here's what happens when Devolution loads a game, by my understanding (similar to Rydian's diagram, but maybe by changing the wording you'll finally understand?):

Select game -> Check for DVV, create blank one if doesn't exist (but no AP stuff done at this point) -> Run apploader from game -> (if DVV is blank, verify game and finish DVV) -> load game

The bit in red is where IOS crashes (or rather, did crash, seeing as it is now fixed). Nothing after that happens at all. Part of the code that is on the original disc causes the IOS in use to crash. Therefore, the whole program crashes. It does NOT fail verification, because it does not get to that point.

EDIT: And running the apploader is NOT part of the AP process. It has to be done regardless, to load the game (it happens every time you load the disc via the disc channel or on a GC as well). So it crashing has nothing to do with AP.

But I do not see how it proves that it did not actually fail the disc verification check, as it certainly did not pass the verification test.

Because it never got as far as doing the disc verification check.

 

[JoostinOnline]

When did you ask for logs that you can easily reproduce yourself?

It was with the earlier revisions where RL failed to pass reach disc verification. I have no means to make logs using the loader used for those versions (no USB Gecko). Only after that was network logging added.

Fixed. The disc verification had nothing to do with the game not launching. If you continue this I'm going to report you for trolling. Either you are a colossal moron who can't comprehend what has been explained dozens of times, or you are just trying to cause trouble.