Gaming It looks like we may have a repeat of last year once again

[jt_1258]

But a .cia dump will still leave no trace, so while they can guarantee (for the most part) that it's among their list of reviewers they can hardly tell which one unless he attaches his identity to the link somehow

though you do realize they could leave a water mark of sorts in the game file itself that doesn't change how the game operates but still leaves a tag to find out who leaked it, right?

 

[RattletraPM]

ha XD, harder control, dam are you one great comdedian, if there system is modded then they could easily dump a cia

Well... he's right, you know. If you're paranoid that the big N will find out then you won't even need to mod your system: all you need is a ntrboot compatible flashcart. Flash GodMode9 to it with a hardcoded aeskeydb et voilà, no traces left on the system.

 

[Reaga]

though you do realize they could leave a water mark of sorts in the game file itself that doesn't change how the game operates but still leaves a tag to find out who leaked it, right?

Would the game even have access to that? I'm fairly certain that's not how the 3DS works. Any water-mark like that would primarily exist within the save file, which is not attached to the .cia.

 

[jt_1258]

Would the game even have access to that? I'm fairly certain that's not how the 3DS works. Any water-mark like that would primarily exist within the save file, which is not attached to the .cia.

they have the source code, so they could easily throw in something unique before compiling it to identify it amongst the copy's given out
it would be pointless to have it in the save file

 

[RattletraPM]

Would the game even have access to that? I'm fairly certain that's not how the 3DS works. Any water-mark like that would primarily exist within the save file, which is not attached to the .cia.

Can it be done? Yes. All Game Freak needs to do is to write slightly different binaries on each cartridge (for example, adding some unused code that does nothing, modifying some strings or even something less subtle) so if the game leaks they'll know which person did it.

Will it be done? I doubt it. Unless they only send digital review copies it'll cost quite a lot to do this whole thing and it only protects from reviewer leaks (if someone leaks the game from a retail store it won't have the watermark, as doing this to each single cartidge in the world would be extremely expensive).

 

[chrisrlink]

also i feel they will give to trusted reviewers not some youtuber for even tighter control

 

[jt_1258]

also i feel they will give to trusted reviewers not some youtuber for even tighter control

they have said they are cracking down like that with superstar saga being the last straw

 

[Reaga]

they have the source code, so they could easily throw in something unique before compiling it to identify it amongst the copy's given out
it would be pointless to have it in the save file

True they could do that to the review copies, and that could double as a way to determine who's playing a leaked copy after release, but I unless they are going to re-compile it for every review copy and/or have access to the reviewer's specific system information I still don't see a way for the game to modify itself based on user-information that wouldn't get reset once dumped into a .CIA unless the game is going to recompile itself during the dump.

Sure, they could store a variable with that information, but it will likely have a default (or null) value when it's sent (and until its value is actually determined at runtime by the user's system) and that's likely the state it would be in once again when dumped.

 

[linuxares]

But a .cia dump will still leave no trace, so while they can guarantee (for the most part) that it's among their list of reviewers they can hardly tell which one unless he attaches his identity to the link somehow

Possibiliy there might be something in there, I'm not saying it is.

 

[chrisrlink]

the only way in my mind is someone at a lowend gamestore in the EU breaks street date thats the only way now or no leak at all (I'd be supprised if it was no leak)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

or somebody steals it

 

[jt_1258]

or somebody steals it

nb4 truck hijackings over pokemon

 

[RattletraPM]

True they could do that to the review copies, and that could double as a way to determine who's playing a leaked copy after release, but I unless they are going to re-compile it for every review copy and/or have access to the reviewer's specific system information I still don't see a way for the game to modify itself based on user-information that wouldn't get reset once dumped into a .CIA unless the game is going to recompile itself during the dump.

Sure, they could store a variable with that information, but it will likely have a default (or null) value when it's sent (and until its value is actually determined at runtime by the user's system) and that's likely the state it would be in once again when dumped.

The game doesn't need to modify itself. All you need to do is to alter the game slightly when you're compiling it. You don't even need to do it manually, as you can easily write a script that does it for you (add a random file somewhere, append random data to something like music files/models/textures, add unused code,... anything that doesn't break your code will do). Once that's done, keep the builds somewhere along with their checksums (MD5, SHA256, or anything that's reliable enough) and a list containing what build you've sent to each specific person. If the game leaks, check if the checksum is the same as one of your builds: if it is, you've got your guy. If it isn't, he might've modified the game to try and remove the watermark, so check the leaked build manually: if you find even a single byte of your digital watermark where it should be, you've still identified the leaker.

 

[Reaga]

Possibiliy there might be something in there, I'm not saying it is.

I can see 3 things:
1. A flag telling them when it goes online that it WAS/IS a review copy
2. The systems they already have in place to determine the console identity of someone online
3. A list of console identities for reviewers to compare to when a review copy goes online. If no match, ban that console.

But this would be a way to determine that the game was pirated FROM a review copy and punish the pirate, I find it difficult to believe they can maintain a non-hard-coded value based on console information across a .cia dump, as after the installation it will be as if the game had never been run.

Keep in mind I'm assuming digital copies, though even on cartridge it would be expensive to create a different imprint on each cartridge.

Now, they COULD force the reviewer to use it on their official NNID and get the console information linked to that and hard-code it, but they'd have to recompile for each reviewer.

Any value that is determined at run-time is difficult to keep without some persistent storage to load from, which would be different per system if it's getting the information from the system.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The game doesn't need to modify itself. All you need to do is to alter the game slightly when you're compiling it. You don't even need to do it manually, as you can easily write a script that does it for you (add a random file somewhere, append random data to something like music files/models/textures, add unused code,... anything that doesn't break your code will do). Once that's done, keep the builds somewhere along with their checksums (MD5, SHA256, or anything that's reliable enough) and a list containing what build you've sent to each specific person. If the game leaks, check if the checksum is the same as one of your builds: if it is, you've got your guy. If it isn't, he might've modified the game to try and remove the watermark, so check the leaked build manually: if you find even a single byte of your digital watermark where it should be, you've still identified the leaker.

Ok, that's pretty deep in there. I concede the possibility, though just like you I doubt they will. It's a lot of extra work for just a few specific copies of the game.

 

[Deleted User]

lol
I can't wait for the bann wave
GBAtemp will be flooded new accounts and repeat threads

guys halp I played pokemon on luma 11.6 bs9 and I get errors online!
[URGENT] I think im banned
psa: don't go online
help!!!1!! 3ds baned with luma11.6
will uninstalling luma unban me>
help Pokemon UM won't work online
help 3ds baned
[QUESTION] how 2 unban 3ds with luma 11.6
guyz my 3ds wont let me be online help
was I banned?
how do I avoid bans
banwave?
luma 11.6 not working online

I think we should just tell the idiots who pirate it early and get banned to delete the local seed XD

 

[Hatchetball]

if you find even a single byte of your digital watermark where it should be, you've still identified the leaker.

Sure, let's say they collect that info from a watermark, after the the reviewer is done, then what... not be able to review the game... that they already reviewed... and leaked? Seems viable LOL
They could just make them all the exact same, waste no money on that useless feature, and simply not let those people from that batch ever review again. With no effort involved, no wasted time/money, you get the same results.

 

[Reaga]

Sure, let's say they collect that info from a watermark, after the the reviewer is done, then what... not be able to review the game... that they already reviewed... and leaked? Seems viable LOL
They could just make them all the exact same, waste no money on that useless feature, and simply not let those people from that batch ever review again. With no effort involved, no wasted time/money, you get the same results.

Actually with that result you get a whole batch of reviewers potentially punished for the actions of one of them. If they're going to increase security on their review copies, they need to be able to identify the leaker.

You're right, it is a pricey process. That said, they are going to at least attempt to find a way, or they're going to eat the loss.

I don't think it would be that expensive to have a review build separate from the release build, almost identical except the review build just has a reviewCopy flag. Review copy goes online whose console info is not among the list of reviewers for that game, ban that one console.

Sure, reviewer goes unpunished but the leak becomes pointless unless the pirate never wants to play online again (not counting LFCS_B shenanigans). A friendly warning to the reviewer that "We know which copies are reviewed and non-reviewers on review copies will be banned" and then even if they leak it the reviewer will likely warn those to play at their own risk. One or 2 games later and we have a precedent for review copies that all reviewers/pirates of review copies will be able to clearly see and discourage leaks and pirates

 

[RattletraPM]

Sure, let's say they collect that info from a watermark, after the the reviewer is done, then what... not be able to review the game... that they already reviewed... and leaked? Seems viable LOL
They could just make them all the exact same, waste no money on that useless feature, and simply not let those people from that batch ever review again. With no effort involved, no wasted time/money, you get the same results.

Honestly, I don't get your point. Once a game leaks a big company would rather like to find a single individual and sue the shit out of him instead of working in batches (because, for example, do your really think that an entire company focused around game journalism would be okay with that decision because a single douchebag leaked a game? If they tried it, not only it would be a PR disaster but there would even be legal repercussions against Nintendo from the other company aswell because you'd be sure as all hell that no game journalism company will let something like that slide that easy).

Anyways, it's not even that this method is completely new and unproven, it's been literally used for years in other industries with e-books, music and even movies (it was particularly effective against leaking movies by theatres who shared the flick before it was released on DVD or other media, and its usage only started to decline when movie studios decided to use a different approach with specific encryption keys and stuff). I even said in another post that this wouldn't be suited for physical review copies and that it most likely would not happen because of costs and effectiveness issues, by the way - but if they'll ever decide to handle digital review copies then you bet that they would try something similiar to this. It's basically a no brainer.

Actually with that result you get a whole batch of reviewers potentially punished for the actions of one of them. If they're going to increase security on their review copies, they need to be able to identify the leaker.

...You semi-ninja'd me right there.


EDIT: A recent source for movie watermarks.

 

[Blue]

nb4 truck hijackings over pokemon

It's happened with Amiibo. O-O

 

[Reaga]

It's happened with Amiibo. O-O

But amiibo could get quite rare for awhile depending on which ones. These Pokemon games aren't going to be sold at several times retail value on ebay

 

[Maq47]

@chrisrlink :

I gotta say, your sig is totally on topic. xD

Anyway, I played SuMo 2 days before release, and played in the Festival Plaza during that time (I accidentally selected the wrong option on the menu). However, it happened when I was somewhere without Wi-Fi, and I was never banned.